EDAQ : DLV. Vragenlijst Evaluatie Dagelijkse Activiteit (Dutch language version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire)

The Dutch language version of the Evaluation of Daily Activity Questionnaire (EDAQ) is a self-report outcome measure, which people complete at home in their own time and then return to the clinician/ researcher. It has been validated for use with people with arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions in the UK, and with people with rheumatoid arthritis in the Netherlands. It can be used for clinical, audit and research purposes. It includes three parts. Part 1 consists of 10 numeric rating scales evaluating aspects of body functions (e.g. pain, fatigue, movement limitations). Part 2 consists of 14 domains assessing activity and participation abilities/ restrictions with and without the use of ergonomic approaches. Part 3 (optional) is about assistive device use. It is available in two forms: parts 1 to 3 and parts 1 and 2 only. Usually, the EDAQ parts 1 and 2 is used for most clinical and research purposes. The updated EDAQ Manual v3 (2018) explains how to use and score the EDAQ, with scoring examples (http://usir.salford.ac.uk/30752/). Rasch Transformation Tables are available in the EDAQ Manual v2 Supplement 1 and Supplement 2. An explanatory leaflet for clients is also available in USIR here under Monographs

Educational needs of health professionals working in rheumatology in Europe

Objective: To explore the availability of postgraduate education for health professionals (HPs) working in rheumatology in Europe, and their perceived educational needs and barriers for participation in current educational offerings. Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with national representatives of rheumatology HPs’ organisations and an online survey among individual HPs was disseminated through existing EULAR networks (10 languages including English). These comprised questions on: availability of postgraduate education, familiarity with EULAR and its educational offerings, unmet needs regarding the contents and mode of delivery and potential barriers to participate in education (0-10 scales). Results: According to 17 national representatives, postgraduate rheumatology education was most common for nurses, physical and occupational therapists. There were 1041 individual responses to the survey, of whom 48% completed all questions. More than half (56%) were familiar with EULAR as an organisation, whereas less than 25% had attended the EULAR congress or was familiar with EULAR online courses. Educational needs regarding contents were highest for “inflammatory arthritis” and “connective tissue diseases” and regarding modes of delivery for “courses organised in own country” and “online courses”. Important barriers to participation included lack of “resources”, “time” and “English language skills”. Overall, there was considerable variation in needs and barriers among countries . Conclusions: There is a lack of postgraduate rheumatology education for HPs in most countries. There are opportunities to raise awareness regarding EULAR educational offerings and to develop courses provided in HPs’ own country, tailored to national needs and barriers and taking language barriers into consideration

How do we perceive activity pacing in rheumatology care? An international delphi survey

Background Activity pacing is a recommended non-pharmacological intervention for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in international clinical guidelines. In clinical practice, activity pacing aims at adapting daily activities, and is often an important component of self-management programs. However, despite its wide endorsement in clinical practice, to date activity pacing is still a poorly understood concept. Objectives To achieve consensus by means of an international Delphi exercise on the most important aspects of activity pacing as an intervention within non-pharmacological rheumatology care. Methods An international, multidisciplinary expert panel comprising 60 clinicians and/or healthcare providers experienced with activity pacing across 12 different countries participated in a Delphi survey. Over four Delphi rounds, the panelists identified and ranked the most important goals of activity pacing, behaviours of activity pacing (the actions people take to meet the goal of activity pacing), strategies to change behaviour in activity pacing (for example goal setting) and contextual factors that should be acknowledged when instructing activity pacing. Besides, topics for future research on activity pacing were formulated and prioritized. Results Of the 60 panelists, nearly two third (63%) completed all four Delphi rounds. The panel prioritized 9 goals, 11 behaviours, 9 strategies to change behaviour and 10 contextual factors of activity pacing. These items were integrated into a consensual list containing the most important aspects of activity pacing interventions in non-pharmacological rheumatology care. Furthermore, the Delphi panel prioritized 9 topics for future research on activity pacing which were included in a research agenda. This agenda highlights that future research should focus on the effectiveness of activity pacing interventions and on appropriate outcome measures to assess its effectiveness, as selected by 64% and 82% of the panelists, respectively. Conclusions The diversity and number of items included in the consensual list developed in the current study reflect the heterogeneity of the concept of activity pacing. This study is an important first step to achieve better transparency and homogeneity within the concept of activity pacing for clinical practice and research