## 3 Results
Using [PERSON]'s benchmarks [37] for interpreting effect sizes, the effect of laterality on functionality problems and pain can be considered small. However, the effect of the use of medication on pain was moderate. The effect sizes of the type of OA on functionality problems and levels of severity were medium (see Table 3). Second Research Question: Can the Functionality of Individuals with OA Be Explained through a Multivariate Model Based on Self-Reported Physical Activity, Health Antecedents, and Medication Use? Table 4 indicates that higher levels of functionality problems measured by the Lequesne Index can be predicted by a linear combination of the coexistence of both pathologies of OA (knee and hip) over only hip infection, (95% CI = [-0.611; 1.353]), greater severity disease (95% CI = [0.675; 3.176]), and pain level (95% CI = [0.118; 0.179]). Specifically, the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** \\ \hline
1. Functionality & – & \(-\)0.19 * & 0.32 ** & 0.626 ** & 0.116 \\
2. Physical Activity Level & – & – & \(-\)0.04 & \(-\)0.074 & \(-\)0.037 \\
3. Severity disease & – & – & – & 0.299 ** & 0.147 \\
4. Levels of Pain & – & – & – & – & 0.087 \\
5. Age & – & – & – & – & – \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: [PERSON]’s correlations between the Lequesne Index score, physical activity level, and severity of disease. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Severity Disease** & **Lequesne Index** & & & \\
**Scores** & **IPAQ-SF** & **VAS** & **Age** \\ \hline  & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & **M \(\pm\) SD** \\  & **(Min–Max)** & **(Min–Max)** & **(Min–Max)** & **(Min–Max)** & **(Min–Max)** & **(Min–Max)** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{Laterality} \\ Unilateral (n = 31) & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 9.63 \(\pm\) 5.97 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 46.58 \(\pm\) 25.98 & 66.58 \(\pm\) 9.99 \\  & (1–4) & (1–23.00) & (1–3) & (0–10) & (47–85) \\ Bilateral (n = 49) & 3.14 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 11.86 \(\pm\) 5.69 & 1.65 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 58.47 \(\pm\) 27.98 & 66.53 \(\pm\) 11.96 \\  & (2–4) & (1–21.50) & (1–3) & (0–10) & (38–92) \\ Statistical test & t = \(-\)1.59 & t = \(-\)1.67 & t = 1.18 & t = \(-\)1.90 & t = 0.019 \\ Effect size & d = 0.36 & d = 0.38 * & d = 0.27 & d = 0.44 * & d = 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{Use of Medication} \\ Yes (n = 55) & 3.04 \(\pm\) 0.72 & 11.54 \(\pm\) 6.39 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.81 & 58.62 \(\pm\) 24.41 & 65.96 \(\pm\) 9.91 \\  & (2–4) & (1–21.00) & (1–3) & (5–10) & (48–85) \\ No (n = 25) & 3.04 \(\pm\) 0.84 & 9.80 \(\pm\) 5.69 & 1.52 \(\pm\) 0.77 & 43.40 \(\pm\) 31.84 & 66.82 \(\pm\) 11.78 \\  & (1–4) & (1–23.00) & (1–3) & (0–10) & (38–92) \\ Statistical test & t = 0.20 & t = \(-\)1.23 & t = \(-\)1.64 & t = \(-\)2.34 & t = \(-\)0.317 \\ Effect size & d = 0.01 & d = 0.30 & d = 0.40 & d = 0.57 * & d = 0.08 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{l}{Type of OA} \\ Hip (n = 28) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.86 & 9.50 \(\pm\) 6.39 (1–23) & 1.82 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 47.32 \(\pm\) 28.52 & 63.57 \(\pm\) 12.16 \\  & (1–4) & (1–3) & (0–10) & (38–89) \\ Knee (n = 26) & 2.85 \(\pm\) 0.68 & 10.06 \(\pm\) 5.16 & 1.85 \(\pm\) 0.83 & 50.50 \(\pm\) 27.35 & 67.35 \(\pm\) 11.46 \\  & (2–4) & (2.50–21.50) & (1–3) & (0–10) & (47–92) \\ Both (n = 26) & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 13.54 \(\pm\) 5.27 (2–21) & 1.54 \(\pm\) 0.76 & 64.27 \(\pm\) 24.92 & 68.96 \(\pm\) 9.31 \\  & (2–4) & & (1–3) & (0–10) & (55–88) \\ Statistical test & F = 3.52 & F = 3.96 & F = 1.18 & F = 2.95 & F = 1.70 \\ Effect size & n\({}^{2}\) = 0.08 * & n\({}^{2}\) = 0.09 * & n\({}^{2}\) = 0.03 & n\({}^{2}\) = 0.07 & n\({}^{2}\) = 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive summary of the Lequesne Index and IPAQ scores based on health history characteristics derived from the patients’ profile and background. Lequesne Index score was higher in individuals who suffered higher levels of severity when they performed lower levels of physical activity (95% CI = [\(-\)0.735; \(-\)0.097]).