Development of a Framework Identifying Domains and Elements of Importance for Arthritis Rehabilitation

Background: Rehabilitation is effective and beneficial for patients with arthritis. The lack of a common structure for describing the content of rehabilitation makes it difficult to compare, transfer and implement research evidence into clinical practice. Objective: To develop a framework comprising domains and elements of importance when describing arthritis rehabilitation. Methods: On the basis of a systematic literature search and review, the framework was developed through a 9-step development process, including 5 Delphi consensus rounds within the Scandinavian Team Arthritis Register - European Team Initiative for Care Research (STAR-ETIC) collaboration, a group of clinicians, researchers and patients from northern Europe. Results: Based on Donabedian's healthcare model, the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health, and a rehabilitation model by D. T. Wade, 4 domains (context, structure, process and outcome) were defined. Within each domain, the most important and relevant key elements for describing rehabilitation were selected. This framework contains 1 key element under context, 9 under structure, 3 under process, and 9 under outcome. Conclusion: The STAR-ETIC framework can be used to describe arthritis rehabilitation, by emphasizing key elements in 4 main domains. A common framework may facilitate comparisons of rehabilitation programmes across countries and different levels of care, and may improve the implementation of rehabilitation research in clinical practice

What’s in the black box of arthritis rehabilitation? : A comparison of rehabilitation practice for patients with inflammatory arthritis in Northern Europe

Background: In evaluating complex interventions, it is a challenge for researchers to provide transparent reporting of the intervention content with sufficient detail and clarity such that effects can be compared across studies or countries. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the content of current rehabilitation for patients with inflammatory arthritis across 4 northern European countries. Patients and methods: A total of 731 patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases participated in a multicentre, longitudinal observational study carried out in Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. Data on context, structure and process were reported by patients and teams at the different participating study sites according to the Scandinavian Team Arthritis Register – European Team Intiative for Care Research (STAR-ETIC) framework. RESULTS: Although large similarities were found in the context, there were important differences between the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. Regarding structure, there were considerable differences in the length of the rehabilitation period across settings and countries. The most evident differences concerned process variables, especially the type and dosage of individual treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: The variation in important aspects of arthritis rehabilitation found in the present study underline the need for transparent and standardized description of these variables when comparing effects across settings and countries. A standardized description of current practice can be achieved by the STAR-ETIC framework. © 2013 The Author

Which patients improve the most after arthritis rehabilitation? A study of predictors in patients with inflamatory arthritis in northern Europe, the STAR-ETIC collaboration

OBJECTIVE: To study health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in arthritis rehabilitation performed by multidisciplinary teams in patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis. Predictors of change in health-related quality of life and the proportion of patients with clinical improvement were investigated. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective observational study in 4 European countries. METHODS: HRQoL was measured with the European Quality 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) in 731 patients who underwent multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Potential predictors were physical functioning (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)), self-efficacy (Arthritis Self Efficacy Scale (ASES)), psychological health (Hopkins Symptom Check List (HSCL-25)), pain/fatigue (numeric rating scales (NRS)), age, sex, diagnosis, comorbidity, education, clinical setting and change of medication during rehabilitation. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to assess for potential predictors and interactions. The minimal important differences for HRQoL were analysed. RESULTS: Reporting worse function (b 0.05, p = 0.01), less psychological well-being (b 0.09, p = 0.000), and experiencing more pain (b 0.03, p = 0.000) or fatigue (b 0.02, p = 0.000) at admission predicted improved HRQoL. Change in medication during rehabilitation (b 0.08, p = 0.013) was associated with greater improvement in HRQoL. These EQ-5D findings were supported by SF-36 findings. Positive minimal important differences were noted in 46% (EQ-5D) and 23-47% (SF-36 subscales) of the patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with more severe symptoms experienced the largest gain in HRQoL post-intervention. The results of this study are of value for selecting the right patients for rheumatological team rehabilitation. © 2014 The AuthorsThe European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) has financially supported the STAR-ETIC by EULAR grant CLI022. This work was supported by Lund University Faculty of Medicine and the Capio’s Research Foundation. The Norwegian arm of this study, the SPOR project, was financed by Extra-stiftelsen Helse og Rehabilitering in Norway.</p

Developing and testing a consensus-based core set of outcome measures for rehabilitation in musculoskeletal diseases

<p><b>Objectives</b>: Rehabilitation is important for people with musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs), and evaluating the effect of rehabilitation on both an individual and group level is advocated. A consensus concerning use of outcome measures will improve collaboration between healthcare providers, and increase the possibility of conducting meta-analyses in future research. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based core set of outcome measures for rehabilitation in MSDs, and to test the feasibility and responsiveness of the set.</p> <p><b>Method</b>: The core set was developed through a stepwise process comprising a Delphi consensus procedure, systematic literature searches, and a pilot study, including 386 patients, to test the feasibility and responsiveness of the set.</p> <p><b>Results</b>: The following aspects and outcome measures were selected: pain [numeric rating scale (NRS)], fatigue (NRS), physical fitness (the 30-second Sit to Stand test), mental health (Hopkins Symptom Checklist 5), daily activities (Hannover Functional Questionnaire), goal attainment (Patient-Specific Functional Scale including motivation score for baseline assessment), quality of life (5-level EuroQol 5 Dimensions), social participation (the social participation item from COOP/WONCA) and coping (Effective Musculoskeletal Consumer Scale-17). All tested outcome measures were found to be feasible, with high completion rates and acceptable score distribution. Standard response means varied from 0.3 to 0.9.</p> <p><b>Conclusions</b>: A consensus-based core set of patient reported outcome measures is presented for evaluating rehabilitation in MSDs. The core set is feasible and responsive for use in Norway, but needs further testing in other countries.</p

Illness perceptions in patients receiving rheumatology rehabilitation: association with health and outcomes at 12 months

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Illness perceptions have been found to change over time and following health care. Hence, addressing illness perceptions alongside existing health care interventions may be important for the sustainment of health gains following rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to measure the illness perceptions of patients receiving inpatient rheumatology rehabilitation and assess the association with aspects of health and outcomes at baseline, discharge and 12 months.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with a rehabilitation stay of one week or more at three institutions in Norway in 2009 were invited to participate in the study. At baseline, discharge and 12 months, patients completed The Rheumatic Disease Illness Perception Questionnaire (RD-IPQ) which includes aspects of illness perceptions important to patients with rheumatic diseases. Stepwise regression analysis was used to assess associations between RD-IPQ scores and different aspects of health at baseline and follow-up after controlling for other aspects of health and sociodemographic variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For the 134 patients included in the study, baseline RD-IPQ scores had a mean of 58.2 (SD 14.9) on a 0–100 scale, where 100 is the worst possible. Scores showed improvement after the rehabilitation stay which were maintained at 12 months. RD-IPQ scores were positively associated with health and outcomes. At baseline RD-IPQ scores were statistically significant in explaining variation in pain, physical function and SF-36 mental health scores. Baseline RD-IPQ scores were significant in explaining fatigue, pain, SF-36 role limitations and social function scores following rehabilitation and at 12 months.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Illness perceptions as measured by the RD-IPQ were associated with health and outcomes as measured by rheumatology-specific and generic instruments. The consideration of illness perceptions as a component of rehabilitation may be important in achieving desired outcomes.</p