Exploring discordance between Health Literacy Questionnaire scores of people with RMDs and assessment by treating health professionals

OBJECTIVES: We studied discordance between health literacy of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and assessment of health literacy by their treating health professionals, and explored whether discordance is associated with the patients' socioeconomic background. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), or gout from three Dutch outpatient rheumatology clinics completed the nine-domain Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Treating health professionals assessed their patients on each HLQ domain. Discordance per domain was defined as a ≥ 2-point difference on a 0-10 scale (except if both scores were below three or above seven), leading to three categories: "negative discordance" (i.e. professional scored lower), "probably the same", or "positive discordance" (i.e. professional scored higher). We used multivariable multilevel multinomial regression models with patients clustered by health professionals to test associations with socioeconomic factors (age, gender, education level, migration background, employment, disability for work, living alone). RESULTS: We observed considerable discordance (21-40% of patients) across HLQ domains. Most discordance occurred for "Critically appraising information" (40.5%, domain 5). Comparatively, positive discordance occurred more frequently. Negative discordance was more frequently and strongly associated with socioeconomic factors, specifically lower education level and non-Western migration background (for five HLQ domains). Associations between socioeconomic factors and positive discordance were less consistent. CONCLUSION: Frequent discordance between patients' scores and professionals' estimations indicates there may be hidden challenges in communication and care, which differ between socioeconomic groups. Successfully addressing patients' health literacy needs cannot solely depend on health professionals' estimations but will require measurement and dialogue

Prevalence of comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis and evaluation of their monitoring: results of an international, cross-sectional study (COMORA)

Background: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing comorbid conditions.<p></p> Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of comorbidities and compare their management in RA patients from different countries worldwide.<p></p> Methods Study design: international, cross-sectional. Patients: consecutive RA patients. Data collected: demographics, disease characteristics (activity, severity, treatment), comorbidities (cardiovascular, infections, cancer, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, osteoporosis and psychiatric disorders).<p></p> Results: Of 4586 patients recruited in 17 participating countries, 3920 were analysed (age, 56±13 years; disease duration, 10±9 years (mean±SD); female gender, 82%; DAS28 (Disease Activity Score using 28 joints)–erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 3.7±1.6 (mean±SD); Health Assessment Questionnaire, 1.0±0.7 (mean±SD); past or current methotrexate use, 89%; past or current use of biological agents, 39%. The most frequently associated diseases (past or current) were: depression, 15%; asthma, 6.6%; cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke), 6%; solid malignancies (excluding basal cell carcinoma), 4.5%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 3.5%. High intercountry variability was observed for both the prevalence of comorbidities and the proportion of subjects complying with recommendations for preventing and managing comorbidities. The systematic evaluation of comorbidities in this study detected abnormalities in vital signs, such as elevated blood pressure in 11.2%, and identified conditions that manifest as laboratory test abnormalities, such as hyperglycaemia in 3.3% and hyperlipidaemia in 8.3%.<p></p> Conclusions: Among RA patients, there is a high prevalence of comorbidities and their risk factors. In this multinational sample, variability among countries was wide, not only in prevalence but also in compliance with recommendations for preventing and managing these comorbidities. Systematic measurement of vital signs and laboratory testing detects otherwise unrecognised comorbid conditions.<p></p&gt

Knowledge and perceptions of the risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs among orthopaedic patients in Thailand

Background There is a high incidence of adverse effects from non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in Thailand, but patients’ perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks is unknown. Objective This study aims to assess patients’ perceptions and knowledge of NSAID risks and factors affecting them. Setting University hospital in North-East of Thailand. Method A Cross-sectional study conducted over 4 months, using a self-administered questionnaire. Patients prescribed NSAIDs for at least one month duration from orthopaedic clinic were recruited using systematic random sampling. Main outcome measure Patients’ perceptions on NSAID risks, knowledge on risk factors, and their associated factors. Results A total of 474 questionnaires were assessed. Overall perceptions of risks was low (scoring below five on a 0–10 visual analogue scale), with risks associated with the renal system scoring highest. Perceived risk of gastrointestinal problems differed between patients using non-selective and selective NSAIDs (3.47 ± 2.75 vs 2.06 ± 2.98; P < 0.001). Receiving side effect information from a health professional was associated with higher risk perception. Most patients (80 %) identified high doses, renal disease and gastrointestinal ulcer increased risks of NSAIDs, but fewer than half recognized that use in the elderly, multiple NSAID use, drinking, hypertension and cardiovascular disease also increased risk of adverse events. Having underlying diseases and receiving side effect information were associated with 1.6–2.0 fold increased knowledge of NSAID risks. Conclusion Perceptions and knowledge concerning NSAID risks was generally low in Thai patients, but higher in those who had received side effect information. Risk-related information should be widely provided, especially in high-risk patients

Decreasing incidence of peptic ulcer complications after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors, a study of the Swedish population from 1974–2002

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a decreasing incidence of peptic ulcer disease, most previous studies report a stabile incidence of ulcer complications. We wanted to investigate the incidence of peptic ulcer complications in Sweden before and after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors (PPI) in 1988 and compare these data to the sales of non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All cases of gastric and duodenal ulcer complications diagnosed in Sweden from 1974 to 2002 were identified using the National hospital discharge register. Information on sales of ASA/NSAID was obtained from the National prescription survey.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>When comparing the time-periods before and after 1988 we found a significantly lower incidence of peptic ulcer complications during the later period for both sexes (p < 0.001). Incidence rates varied from 1.5 to 7.8/100000 inhabitants/year regarding perforated peptic ulcers and from 5.2 to 40.2 regarding peptic ulcer bleeding. The number of sold daily dosages of prescribed NSAID/ASA tripled from 1975 to 2002. The number of prescribed sales to women was higher than to males. Sales of low-dose ASA also increased. The total volume of NSAID and ASA, i.e. over the counter sale and sold on prescription, increased by 28% during the same period.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When comparing the periods before and after the introduction of the proton pump inhibitors we found a significant decrease in the incidence of peptic ulcer complications in the Swedish population after 1988 when PPI were introduced on the market. The cause of this decrease is most likely multifactorial, including smoking habits, NSAID consumption, prevalence of Helicobacter pylori and the introduction of PPI. Sales of prescribed NSAID/ASA increased, especially in middle-aged and elderly women. This fact seems to have had little effect on the incidence of peptic ulcer complications.</p

Fatigue assessment in RA Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To compare the psychometric functioning of multidimensional disease-specific, multiitem generic, and single-item measures of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling were used to evaluate the measurement structure and local reliability of the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) vitality scale, and the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) in a sample of 588 patients with RA. Results. A 1-factor CFA model yielded a similar fit to a 5-factor model with subscale-specific dimensions, and the items from the different instruments adequately fit the IRT model, suggesting essential unidimensionality in measurement. The SF-36 vitality scale outperformed the BRAF-MDQ at lower levels of fatigue, but was less precise at moderate to higher levels of fatigue. At these levels of fatigue, the living, cognition, and emotion subscales of the BRAF-MDQ provide additional precision. The BRAF-NRS showed a limited measurement range with its highest precision centered on average levels of fatigue. Conclusion. The different instruments appear to access a common underlying domain of fatigue severity, but differ considerably in their measurement precision along the continuum. The SF-36 vitality scale can be used to measure fatigue severity in samples with relatively mild fatigue. For samples expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the multidimensional BRAF-MDQ appears to be a better choice. The BRAF-NRS are not recommended if precise assessment is required, for instance in longitudinal settings. (J Rheumatol First Release Jan 15 2015

Low omega-6 vs. low omega-6 plus high omega-3 dietary intervention for Chronic Daily Headache: Protocol for a randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Targeted analgesic dietary interventions are a promising strategy for alleviating pain and improving quality of life in patients with persistent pain syndromes, such as chronic daily headache (CDH). High intakes of the omega-6 (n-6) polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), linoleic acid (LA) and arachidonic acid (AA) may promote physical pain by increasing the abundance, and subsequent metabolism, of LA and AA in immune and nervous system tissues. Here we describe methodology for an ongoing randomized clinical trial comparing the metabolic and clinical effects of a low n-6, average n-3 PUFA diet, to the effects of a low n-6 plus high n-3 PUFA diet, in patients with CDH. Our primary aim is to determine if: A) both diets reduce n-6 PUFAs in plasma and erythrocyte lipid pools, compared to baseline; and B) the low n-6 plus high n-3 diet produces a greater decline in n-6 PUFAs, compared to the low n-6 diet alone. Secondary clinical outcomes include headache-specific quality-of-life, and headache frequency and intensity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for CDH are included. After a 6-week baseline phase, participants are randomized to a low n-6 diet, or a low n-6 plus high n-3 diet, for 12 weeks. Foods meeting nutrient intake targets are provided for 2 meals and 2 snacks per day. A research dietitian provides intensive dietary counseling at 2-week intervals. Web-based intervention materials complement dietitian advice. Blood and clinical outcome data are collected every 4 weeks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Subject recruitment and retention has been excellent; 35 of 40 randomized participants completed the 12-week intervention. Preliminary blinded analysis of composite data from the first 20 participants found significant reductions in erythrocyte n-6 LA, AA and %n-6 in HUFA, and increases in n-3 EPA, DHA and the omega-3 index, indicating adherence.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/(NCT01157208)">(NCT01157208)</a></p

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To compare the psychometric functioning of multidimensional disease-specific, multiitem generic, and single-item measures of fatigue in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and longitudinal item response theory (IRT) modeling were used to evaluate the measurement structure and local reliability of the Bristol RA Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) vitality scale, and the BRAF Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF-NRS) in a sample of 588 patients with RA. Results. A 1-factor CFA model yielded a similar fit to a 5-factor model with subscale-specific dimensions, and the items from the different instruments adequately fit the IRT model, suggesting essential unidimensionality in measurement. The SF-36 vitality scale outperformed the BRAF-MDQ at lower levels of fatigue, but was less precise at moderate to higher levels of fatigue. At these levels of fatigue, the living, cognition, and emotion subscales of the BRAF-MDQ provide additional precision. The BRAF-NRS showed a limited measurement range with its highest precision centered on average levels of fatigue. Conclusion. The different instruments appear to access a common underlying domain of fatigue severity, but differ considerably in their measurement precision along the continuum. The SF-36 vitality scale can be used to measure fatigue severity in samples with relatively mild fatigue. For samples expected to have higher levels of fatigue, the multidimensional BRAF-MDQ appears to be a better choice. The BRAF-NRS are not recommended if precise assessment is required, for instance in longitudina