Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17)

PURPOSE: The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) measures the skills of musculoskeletal patients in managing their own healthcare. The objectives of this study were to translate the EC-17 into Dutch and to further evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The EC-17 was translated and cognitively pretested following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Two hundred and thirty-eight outpatients (52 % response rate) with osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia completed the EC-17 along with other validated measures. Three weeks later, 101 patients completed the EC-17 again. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure of the scale. The items adequately fit the Rasch model and only one item demonstrated differential item functioning. Person reliability was high (0.92), but item difficulty levels tended to cluster around the middle of the scale, and measurement precision was highest for moderate and lower levels of skills. The scale demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71), and correlations with other measures were largely as expected. CONCLUSION: The results supported the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the EC-17, but suggest that the scale is best targeted at patients with relatively low levels of skills. Future studies should further examine its sensitivity to change in a clinical trial specifically aimed at improving effective consumer skills

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews

The OMERACT emerging leaders program: The good, the bad, and the future

The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2019. All rights reserved. Objective. To describe the experience of the first OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program (ELP). Methods. A Delphi process identified positive aspects, areas for improvement, and future directions. Core items were defined as essential if they received ≥ 70% ratings. Results. Participants valued relatable/accessible mentors (100%), including an OMERACT Executive mentor (100%), and a support network of peers (90%). Key items for future development were funding support (100%) and developing knowledge about OMERACT processes (90%) and politics (80%). Conclusion. The ELP has the potential to provide targeted training for early career researchers to develop relevant skills for future leadership roles within OMERACT

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

Equity-oriented toolkit for health technology assessment and knowledge translation: application to scaling up of training and education for health workers

Human resources for health are in crisis worldwide, especially in economically disadvantaged areas and areas with high rates of HIV/AIDS in both health workers and patients. International organizations such as the Global Health Workforce Alliance have been established to address this crisis. A technical working group within the Global Health Workforce Alliance developed recommendations for scaling up education and training of health workers. The paper will illustrate how decision-makers can use evidence and tools from an equity-oriented toolkit to scale up training and education of health workers, following five recommendations of the technical working group. The Equity-Oriented Toolkit, developed by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, has four major steps: (1) burden of illness; (2) community effectiveness; (3) economic evaluation; and (4) knowledge translation/implementation. Relevant tools from each of these steps will be matched with the appropriate recommendation from the technical working group

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed. REVIEW METHODS Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo. RESULTS 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%). CONCLUSIONS Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO number CRD42020213656

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

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

Pain measurement in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: where to go from here? Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018

Objective: Establishing a research agenda on standardizing pain measurement in clinical trials in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Methods: Discussion during a meeting at OMERACT 2018, prepared by a systematic review of existing core outcome sets and a patient online survey. Results: Several key questions were debated: is pain a symptom or a disease? are pain core (sub)domains consistent across RMDs? how to account for pain mechanistic descriptors (e.g. central sensitization) in pain measurement? Conclusion: Characterizing and assessing the spectrum of pain experience across RMDs in a standardized fashion is the future objective of the OMERACT pain working group

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. Methods: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. Results: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. Conclusion: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient’s perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential