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

Development of patient-centred standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net project

OBJECTIVE: The eumusc.net project is a European Union (EU) commission and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)funded project that aims to facilitate equal standards for musculoskeletal health in all EU countries. One work-package was to develop evidence-based and patient-centred standards of care (SOC), for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) understandable for patients and professionals across Europe. METHOD: A review of documents covering clinical practice ‘guidelines’ and SOC for RA was conducted. The obtained documents were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) criteria, and all recommended methods to treat RA were extracted. Based on this information, a three-round Delphi exercise was performed including a consensus group meeting of 21 researchers and patient representatives. RESULTS: 16 patient-centred SOC were formulated including a lay version in the format of a checklist. An example is SOC 3: ‘People with RA should receive a treatment plan developed individually between them and their clinician at each visit.’ The corresponding checklist question reads: ‘Have I received a treatment plan which includes an explanation of my management, expected goals and outcomes and important contact details?’ CONCLUSIONS: The SOC for RA will be available in all 23 official European languages and contribute to more unified treatment approaches in Europe

Functional consultation and exercises improve grip strength in osteoarthritis of the hand – a randomised controlled trial

Abstract Background Evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in hand osteoarthritis is promising but still scarce. Combined interventions are most likely to best cover the clinical needs of patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a combined, interdisciplinary intervention feasible in both primary and specialist care compared to routine care plus placebo in patients with hand OA. Methods This was a randomised, controlled 2-month trial with a blinded assessor. In the combined-intervention group, rheumatology-trained health professionals from different disciplines delivered a one-session individual intervention with detailed information on functioning, activities of daily living, physical activity, nutrition, assistive devices, instructions on pain management and exercises. Telephone follow up was performed after 4 weeks. The primary outcome was grip strength after 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported pain, satisfaction with treatment, health status, two of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function subtests and the total score of the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN). Statistical significance was calculated by Student’s t test or the Mann-Whitney U test depending on data distribution. Binominal logistic regression models were fitted, with the primary outcome being the dependent and the group allocation being the independent variable. Results There were 151 participating patients (74 in the combined-intervention and 77 in the routine-care-plus-placebo group) with 2-month follow-up attendance of 84% (n = 128). Grip strength significantly increased in the combined-intervention group and decreased in the routine-care group (dominant hand, mean 0.03 bar (SD 0.11) versus − 0.03 (SD 0.13), p value = 0.001, baseline corrected values) after 8 weeks. Conclusion The combined one-session individual intervention significantly improved grip strength and self-reported satisfaction with treatment in patients with hand OA. It can be delivered by different rheumatology-trained health professionals and is thus also feasible in primary care. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN62513257. Registered on 17 May 2012

EULAR/eumusc.net standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis : cross-sectional analyses of importance, level of implementation and care gaps experienced by patients and rheumatologists across 35 European countries

Objective As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe. Methods Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0-10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0-100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap≥30 and importance≥6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (≥6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models. Results Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients. Conclusions Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs

EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis

© 2015, BMJ Publishing Group. All rights reserved. Objectives: The task force aimed to: (1) develop evidence-based recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis, (2) identify the need for further research on PE and (3) determine health professionals' educational needs in order to provide evidence-based PE. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force, representing 10 European countries, formulated a definition for PE and 10 research questions that guided a systematic literature review (SLR). The results from the SLR were discussed and used as a basis for developing the recommendations, a research agenda and an educational agenda. The recommendations were categorised according to level and strength of evidence graded from A (highest) to D (lowest). Task force members rated their agreement with each recommendation from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Results: Based on the SLR and expert opinions, eight recommendations were developed, four with strength A evidence. The recommendations addressed when and by whom PE should be offered, modes and methods of delivery, theoretical framework, outcomes and evaluation. A high level of agreement was achieved for all recommendations (mean range 9.4-9.8). The task force proposed a research agenda and an educational agenda. Conclusions: The eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for PE for people with inflammatory arthritis are intended to provide a core framework for the delivery of PE and training for health professionals in delivering PE across Europe