Disseminating and assessing implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis:a mixed-methods study with patients' perspectives

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' agreement and reasons for agreement or disagreement with the EULAR recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: This mixed-method survey collected data using snowball sampling. The survey had been translated into 20 languages by local healthcare professionals, researchers and patient research partners. It explored the degree to which patients with IA agreed with each recommendation for PE (0=do not agree at all and 10=agree completely) and their rationale for their agreement level in free text questions. Descriptive statistics summarised participants' demographics and agreement levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the free text data. Sixteen subcategories were developed, describing the reasons for agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, which constituted the categories. RESULTS: The sample comprised 2779 participants (79% female), with a mean (SD) age 55.1 (13.1) years and disease duration 17.1 (13.3) years. Participants strongly agreed with most recommendations (median 10 (IQR: 9-10) for most recommendations). Reasons for agreement with the recommendations included the benefit of using PE to facilitate collaborative care and shared decision making, the value of flexible and tailored PE, and the value of gaining support from other patients. Reasons for disagreement included lack of resources for PE, not wanting information to be tailored by healthcare professionals and a reluctance to use telephone-based PE. CONCLUSION: The EULAR recommendations for PE have been disseminated among patients with IA. Overall, agreement levels were very high, suggesting that they reflect patients' preferences for engaging in collaborative clinical care and using PE to facilitate and supplement their own understanding of IA. Reasons for not completely agreeing with the recommendations can inform implementation strategies and education of healthcare professionals

Women, men, and rheumatoid arthritis: analyses of disease activity, disease characteristics, and treatments in the QUEST-RA Study

Introduction Gender as a predictor of outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has evoked considerable interest over the decades. Historically, there is no consensus whether RA is worse in females or males. Recent reports suggest that females are less likely than males to achieve remission. Therefore, we aimed to study possible associations of gender and disease activity, disease characteristics, and treatments of RA in a large multinational cross-sectional cohort of patients with RA called Quantitative Standard Monitoring of Patients with RA (QUEST-RA). Methods The cohort includes clinical and questionnaire data from patients who were seen in usual care, including 6,004 patients at 70 sites in 25 countries as of April 2008. Gender differences were analyzed for American College of Rheumatology Core Data Set measures of disease activity, DAS28 (disease activity score using 28 joint counts), fatigue, the presence of rheumatoid factor, nodules and erosions, and the current use of prednisone, methotrexate, and biologic agents. Results Women had poorer scores than men in all Core Data Set measures. The mean values for females and males were swollen joint count-28 (SJC28) of 4.5 versus 3.8, tender joint count-28 of 6.9 versus 5.4, erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 30 versus 26, Health Assessment Questionnaire of 1.1 versus 0.8, visual analog scales for physician global estimate of 3.0 versus 2.5, pain of 4.3 versus 3.6, patient global status of 4.2 versus 3.7, DAS28 of 4.3 versus 3.8, and fatigue of 4.6 versus 3.7 (P LT 0.001). However, effect sizes were small-medium and smallest (0.13) for SJC28. Among patients who had no or minimal disease activity (0 to 1) on SJC28, women had statistically significantly higher mean values compared with men in all other disease activity measures (P LT 0.001) and met DAS28 remission less often than men. Rheumatoid factor was equally prevalent among genders. Men had nodules more often than women. Women had erosions more often than men, but the statistical significance was marginal. Similar proportions of females and males were taking different therapies. Conclusions In this large multinational cohort, RA disease activity measures appear to be worse in women than in men. However, most of the gender differences in RA disease activity may originate from the measures of disease activity rather than from RA disease activity itself

Nursing sensitive outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd Background Although rheumatology nursing has been shown to be effective in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis, patient outcomes sensitive to nursing interventions (nursing sensitive outcomes) have not been systematically studied. Objectives The objective of this study was to identify and delineate relevant patient outcomes measured in studies that reported nursing interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Design A systematic search was conducted from 1990 to 2016. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients with rheumatoid arthritis, (ii) adult population age ≥16 years, (iii) nurse as part of the care team or intervention delivery, (iv) primary research only, (v) English language, and (vi) quantitative studies with nursing sensitive outcomes. Data sources Medline, CINAHL, Ovid nursing, Cochrane library and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant studies. Review methods Using the predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, nine reviewers working in pairs assessed the eligibility of the identified studies based on titles and abstracts. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved and full texts were further assessed. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Data on nursing sensitive outcomes were extracted independently by two reviewers. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology comprehensive conceptual framework for health was used to contextualise and present findings. Results Of the 820 articles retrieved, 7 randomised controlled trials and 3 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen nursing sensitive outcomes were identified (disease activity, clinical effects, pain, early morning stiffness duration, fatigue, patient safety issues, function, knowledge, patient satisfaction, confidence in care received, mental health status, self-efficacy, patient attitude/perception of ability to control arthritis, quality of life, health utility, health care resources, death). These fitted into 10 health intervention domains in keeping with the pre-specified conceptual framework for health: disease status, effectiveness, safety, function, knowledge, satisfaction, psychological status, quality of life, cost, death. A total of 59 measurement instruments were identified comprising patient reported outcome measures (n = 31), and biologic measures and reports (n = 28). Conclusions This review is notable in that it is the first to have identified, and reported, a set of multidimensional outcome measures that are sensitive to nursing interventions in rheumatology specifically. Further research is required to determine a core set of outcomes to be used in all rheumatology nursing intervention studies

Assessing acceptability and identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with rheumatology professionals in 23 European and Asian countries

Objectives: To disseminate and assess the level of acceptability and applicability of the EULAR recommendations for patient education among rheumatology professionals across Europe and 3 Asian countries, and identify potential barriers and facilitators to their application.Methods: A parallel convergent mixed methods research design with an inductive approach was used. A web-based survey, available in 20 different languages, was distributed to health professionals by non-probability sampling. The level of agreement and applicability of each recommendation was assessed by (0 to 10) rating scales. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were assessed using free-text responses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data by content analysis and presented in 16 categories supported by quotes. Results: A total of 1159 participants completed the survey; 852 (73.5%) were women. Most of the professionals were nurses (n=487), rheumatologists (n=320), physiotherapists (n=158). For all recommendations, the level of agreement was high but applicability was lower. The four most common barriers to application were: lack of time, lack of training in how to provide patient education, not having enough staff to perform this task and lack of evaluation tools. The most common facilitators were: tailoring patient education to individual patients, using group education, linking patient education with diagnosis and treatment, and inviting patients to provide feedback on patient education delivery.Conclusions: This project has disseminated the EULAR recommendations for patient education to health professionals across 23 countries. Potential barriers to their application were identified and some are amenable to change, namely training patient education providers and developing evaluation tools

Mixed methods reserach design to determine clinical characteristics, contributory factors and patients\u27 perceptions of fatigue in inflammatory arthritis

THESIS 966

Progress since OMERACT 6 on including the patient perspective in rheumatoid arthritis outcome assessment

The first OMERACT Patient Perspective Workshop took place at OMERACT 6 in 2002. Through a series of meetings and discussion sessions a research agenda emerged and this report outlines progress made on this agenda. Work on identifying novel outcomes, instruments, and methods has shown similarities across European countries in the importance patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) attach to specific outcomes, in particular fatigue. Validation of an appropriate instrument to measure fatigue in patients with RA is currently being investigated. Frequent or repeated real-time assessment of symptoms such as pain and fatigue is becoming possible using electronic systems. An OMERACT Patient Panel has been established, and has produced a glossary for patients involved in supporting clinical research. In some centers, efforts are being made to provide Patient Research Partners with knowledge and skills that will enhance their contribution, and some of these approaches will be incorporated into OMERACT 7. The research agenda that was developed during the first Patient Perspective Workshop has stimulated new work in several areas. In addition, international attention has been drawn to the need to make sure that the patient's perspective is not lost among the technical expertise of rheumatology

Incorporating the patient perspective into outcome assessment in rheumatoid arthritis: Progress at OMERACT 7

The Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 7 addressed the question of assessing the outcomes of intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the perspective of those who experience the disease. A particular emphasis at this workshop was placed on fatigue, but other areas included well-being, real-time assessment, patient priorities, and needs in early and late disease. Through a series of overview presentations, discussion groups, and plenary sessions, workshop participants (who included 19 patients) clarified what is known and what are the outstanding issues for future research. The importance of further work on clarifying the validity of fatigue measurements in RA has been confirmed, and with at least one suitable instrument available there will be strong pressure to include fatigue in a redefined core set of outcome measures in RA. In the other 4 areas covered there are important issues that can be addressed by enquiry and experiment and that together provide a challenging research agenda. At the final plenary session the OMERACT conference endorsed, by a large majority, the proposal that fatigue may warrant consideration for inclusion in the OMERACT core set for RA