Measuring patient perceptions about osteoporosis pharmacotherapy

Abstract Background Adherence to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy is poor, and linked with patient perceptions of the benefits of, and barriers to taking these treatments. To better understand the association between patient perceptions and osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, we generated thirteen items that may tap into patient perceptions about the benefits of, and barriers to osteoporosis treatment; and included these items as part of a standardized telephone interview of women aged 65–90 years (n = 871). The purpose of this paper is to report the psychometric evaluation of our scale. Findings Upon detailed analysis, six of the thirteen items were omitted: four redundant, one did not correlate well with any other item and one factorial complex. From the remaining seven items, two distinct unidimensional domains emerged (variance explained = 78%). Internal consistency of the 5-item osteoporosis drug treatment benefits domain was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88), and was supported by construct validity; women reporting a physician-diagnosis or taking osteoporosis pharmacotherapy had higher osteoporosis treatment benefit scores compared to those reporting no osteoporosis diagnosis or treatment respectively. Because only two items were identified as tapping into treatment barriers, we recommend they each be used as a separate item assessing potential barriers to adherence to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, rather than combined into a single scale. Conclusion The 5-item osteoporosis drug treatment benefits scale may be useful to examine perceptions about the benefits of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy. Further research is needed to develop scales that adequately measure perceived barriers to osteoporosis pharmacotherapy

Measuring cognitive assessment and intervention burden in patients with acquired brain injured: Development of the "How Much is Too Much" questionnaire

Objective: To design and preliminarily test a questionnaire intended to measure patient treatment burden resulting from participation in cognitive assessments and interventions. Methods: An expert consensus process was used to develop the concept of patient treatment burden and to determine the first set of questionnaire items and administration protocol. The pilot questionnaire was administered to 20 patients with mild to severe acquired brain injuries on completion of a 2-h or longer neuropsychological assessment. Following preliminary testing, the questionnaire was revised and re-evaluated by a second expert panel and content validity was assessed. Results: Burden was defined as psychologically and/or physically aversive symptoms in response to cognitive assessment or intervention. The first questionnaire contained 21 items assigned to 3 categories: physical, cognitive, and emotional. Eightyfive percent of patients endorsed symptom level increases, with "tired/fatigued" the most frequently endorsed item (80% of patients). Instructions and test items were easily understood, and the questionnaire was quick to administer. Content validity ratio (CVR) of the revised questionnaire yielded 23 acceptable items and a subset met the highest CVR threshold (>0.78). Conclusion: This patient-reported outcome will ultimately help patients give voice to aversive experiences, and help clinicians and researchers to monitor and adapt assessments/treatments appropriately. Future steps in development are described

Disclosure, Privacy and Workplace Accommodation of Episodic Disabilities: Organizational Perspectives on Disability Communication-Support Processes to Sustain Employment

© 2020, The Author(s). Purpose Employers increasingly are asked to accommodate workers living with physical and mental health conditions that cause episodic disability, where periods of wellness are punctuated by intermittent and often unpredictable activity limitations (e.g., depression, anxiety, arthritis, colitis). Episodic disabilities may be challenging for workplaces which must comply with legislation protecting the privacy of health information while believing they would benefit from personal health details to meet a worker’s accommodation needs. This research aimed to understand organizational perspectives on disability communication-support processes. Methods Twenty-seven participants from diverse employment sectors and who had responsibilities for supporting workers living with episodic disabilities (e.g., supervisors, disability managers, union representatives, occupational health representatives, labour lawyers) were interviewed. Five participants also had lived experience of a physical or mental health episodic disability. Participants were recruited through organizational associations, community networks and advertising. Semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis framed data collection and analyses, and mapped communication-support processes. Results Seven themes underpinned communication-support process: (1) similarities and differences among physical and mental health episodic disabilities; (2) cultures of workplace support, including contrasting medical and biopsychosocial perspectives; (3) misgivings about others and their role in communication-support processes; (4) that subjective perceptions matter; (5) the inherent complexity of the response process; (6) challenges arising when a worker denies a disability; and (7) casting disability as a performance problem. Conclusions This study identifies a conceptual framework and areas where workplace disability support processes could be enhanced to improve inclusion and the sustainability of employment among workers living with episodic disabilities

Predictors of locating women six to eight years after contact: internet resources at recruitment may help to improve response rates in longitudinal research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The ability to locate those sampled has important implications for response rates and thus the success of survey research. The purpose of this study was to examine predictors of locating women requiring tracing using publicly available methods (primarily Internet searches), and to determine the additional benefit of vital statistics linkages.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Random samples of women aged 65–89 years residing in two regions of Ontario, Canada were selected from a list of those who completed a questionnaire between 1995 and 1997 (n = 1,500). A random sample of 507 of these women had been searched on the Internet as part of a feasibility pilot in 2001. All 1,500 women sampled were mailed a newsletter and information letter prior to recruitment by telephone in 2003 and 2004. Those with returned mail or incorrect telephone number(s) required tracing. Predictors of locating women were examined using logistic regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Tracing was required for 372 (25%) of the women sampled, and of these, 181 (49%) were located. Predictors of locating women were: younger age, residing in less densely populated areas, having had a web-search completed in 2001, and listed name identified on the Internet prior to recruitment in 2003. Although vital statistics linkages to death records subsequently identified 41 subjects, these data were incomplete.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Prospective studies may benefit from using Internet resources at recruitment to determine the listed names for telephone numbers thereby facilitating follow-up tracing and improving response rates. Although vital statistics linkages may help to identify deceased individuals, these may be best suited for post hoc response rate adjustment.</p

Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective: To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection. Methods: The “OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection” framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework. Results: The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection. Conclusion: The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology.

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigour and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection. Methods: We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer”. Truth, Discrimination and Feasibility are the three original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed four signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table which summarizes the seven measurement properties: Truth (domain match, construct validity), Discrimination (test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning), and Feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on two instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group Results: The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The two instruments were presented and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes. Conclusion: Instrument Selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders

Objectives: To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. Methods: Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence fro