LAUSR

s / Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 26 (2018) S60eS474 S333 Results: The journal entries of the first 22 subjects were reviewed. Four subjects were excluded from analysis: one because he withdrew from the study (Group 1), two because journals were not returned (Group 1), and one because excessive training times were logged (143 min daily; Group 2). This left 18 subjects for analysis: 10 were in Group 1 (2M/8F, 61þ/ 11 yrs, KL 1⁄4 2.4), and eight were in Group 2 (2M/6F, 62þ/ 9 yrs, KL 1⁄4 2.6) (P > .343). On average, Group 1 trained 12.6 min/day, while Group 2 recorded 14.2 min/day during the threeweek period (P 1⁄4 .679). Therewas no Group effect on daily logged journal entries (P 1⁄4 .578), and both groups started similarly motivated (17.2 and 17.4 min/day during the first three days); however, with time, the logged journal times decayed (P 1⁄4 .003). Regression analysis suggested a daily reduction of 32 s (Group 1) and 38 s (Group 2), finishing clearly under 10 min/day on Day 18 (Figure). Conclusions: Our initial experience with self-driven, in-home gait retraining using a pressure insole and negative feedback is promising in terms of overall adherence. Although we saw a decrease in adherence over time, the difference was likely not related to negative feedback from training since the no-feedback group also experienced a similar trend in decreased adherence rates over 3 weeks. In that ‘no journal entry’ was treated equally to ‘no training’, a worst case scenario has been created. Treating ‘no journal entries’ as ‘lost data’ would increase the daily average session times to 17.3 and 16.7 min for Group 1 and 2, respectively, with both groups finishing at 12.5 min on Day 18. Nevertheless, continued follow up and encouragement techniques may be necessary to help maintain adherence. 621 EFFECTS OF SUPERVISED EXERCISE IN OLDER POPULATION HAVING OSTEOARTHRITIS OF KNEE: A RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL M. Islam. Natl. Inst. of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Rehabilitation,