The WebRA study: Opportunities and challenges in digital patient education from the perspective of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A qualitative study

This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Objective: To explore patients’ perceptions of digital patient education (PE), and how this contributes to self-management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Individual interviews based on ’interpretive description’ methodology. The patients were purposively selected from a randomized controlled trial that investigated the effects of digital PE. The analysis included a descriptive section, followed by the interpretation and extraction of the main messages. Results: Overall, participants had positive perceptions of the e-learning program. Advantages were flexibility, the possibility for repetition, entertainment, availability, and learning in familiar surroundings. Disadvantages were unmet relational support needs due to missing dialogue with health care providers (HCPs). For the majority, a need for insight into the condition led to an active approach to using e-learning. The e-learning program facilitated knowledge acquisition about RA, but relational support from HCPs and a positive attitude toward living with RA were also important for achieving self-management. Conclusion: Digital PE is useful for self-management support in RA, however different forms and combinations of PE must be offered in the future to accommodate various needs throughout the disease course. Practice implications: These results may inform future development and implementation of digital PE that adequately takes individual preferences for selfmanagement support into account.publishedVersio

The effectiveness of e-learning in patient education delivered to patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The WebRA study—protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Background: Patient education is integral to the treatment and care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Change is taking place in the organisation of healthcare systems because of a demographic shift towards ageing populations, an increasing use of technology and advancements in digital technologies, allowing for new interventions. This study will aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed e-learning patient education programme based on self-management that targets patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: A pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial is planned. We intend to recruit approximately 200 patients with a new diagnosis (< 3months) of rheumatoid arthritis. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to web-based patient education delivered through an e-learning programme at home or standard face-to-face patient education provided at the hospital. The primary outcome is self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes are improved knowledge of rheumatoid arthritis, adherence to medication, health literacy level and quality of life. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and follow-up occurring 1, 3, 6 and 12months after enrolment. Furthermore, data on healthcare utilisation and utilisation of the e-learning programme will be assessed at the 12-month follow-up. Statistical analysis, including differences between groups, will be evaluated using the chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Statistical analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle, and analysis of variance will be used to evaluate the within- and between-groups differences testing the hypothesis of the ‘superiority’ of web-based patient education over standard face-to-face education provided at the hospital. Per protocol analysis will be used to assess the impact of missing data. Enrolment started in February 2021 and will end in June 2022. Discussion: The study is expected to contribute to the evidence on the effectiveness of web-based patient education within rheumatic diseases. If the e-learning programme is effective, it will be incorporated into existing services to improve the self-management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Further, this mode of providing patient education may impact the organisation of health care for both rheumatic diseases and other chronic diseases by offering different modes of delivering patient education based on the needs and preferences of patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04669340. Registered on November 27, 2020. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04669340?term=e-learning&cond=Rheumatoid+Arthritis&draw=2&rank=1. See Additional file 1 for detailed information on the dataset according to the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set

Follow-Up of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Specialist Health Care With Remote Monitoring and Self-Monitoring Compared With Regular Face-to-Face Follow-Up Visits (the ReMonit Study) : Protocol for a Randomized, Controlled Open-Label Noninferiority Trial

Funding Information: The ReMonit study and the qualitative substudy received funding from the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (funding number 2021062) and the Centre for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway (funding number 328657).Peer reviewe

Measures used to assess interventions for increasing patient involvement in Danish healthcare setting: a rapid review

publishedVersio

Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review

Objective To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Methods A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. Results Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. Conclusion There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level

Effects of diet on the outcomes of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs): systematic review and meta-analyses informing the 2021 EULAR recommendations for lifestyle improvements in people with RMDs

BackgroundA EULAR taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In this paper, the literature on the effect of diet on the progression of RMDs is reviewed.MethodsSystematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed of studies related to diet and disease outcomes in seven RMDs: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic sclerosis and gout. In the first phase, existing relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published from 2013 to 2018, were identified. In the second phase, the review was expanded to include published original studies on diet in RMDs, with no restriction on publication date. Systematic reviews or original studies were included if they assessed a dietary exposure in one of the above RMDs, and reported results regarding progression of disease (eg, pain, function, joint damage).ResultsIn total, 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles were included. Many dietary exposures have been studied (n=83), although the majority of studies addressed people with OA and RA. Most dietary exposures were assessed by relatively few studies. Exposures that have been assessed by multiple, well conducted studies (eg, OA: vitamin D, chondroitin, glucosamine; RA: omega-3) were classified as moderate evidence of small effects on disease progression.ConclusionThe current literature suggests that there is moderate evidence for a small benefit for certain dietary components. High-level evidence of clinically meaningful effect sizes from individual dietary exposures on outcomes in RMDs is missing

Effectiveness of remote care interventions: A systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

Objective: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on different outcomes of remote care compared with face-to-face (F2F) care, its implementation into clinical practice and to identify drivers and barriers in order to inform a task force formulating the EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).  Methods: A search strategy was developed and run in Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed standardised data extraction, synthesis and risk of bias (RoB) assessment.  Results: A total of 2240 references were identified. Forty-seven of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Remote monitoring (n=35) was most frequently studied, with telephone/video calls being the most common mode of delivery (n=30). Of the 34 studies investigating outcomes of remote care, the majority addressed efficacy and user perception; 34% and 21% of them, respectively, reported a superiority of remote care as compared with F2F care. Time and cost savings were reported as major benefits, technical aspects as major drawback in the 13 studies that investigated drivers and barriers of remote care. No study addressed remote care implementation. The main limitation of the studies identified was the heterogeneity of outcomes and methods, as well as a substantial RoB (50% of studies with high RoB).  Conclusions: Remote care leads to similar or better results compared with F2F treatment concerning efficacy, safety, adherence and user perception outcomes, with the limitation of heterogeneity and considerable RoB of the available studies