The OMERACT Stepwise Approach to Select and Develop Imaging Outcome Measurement Instruments: The Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Example

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) stepwise approach to select and develop an imaging instrument with musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) as an example.

Methods.

The OMERACT US Working Group (WG) developed a 4-step process to select instruments based on imaging. Step 1 applies the OMERACT Framework Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) to existing US outcome measurement instruments for a specific indication. This step requires a literature review focused on the truth, discrimination, and feasibility aspects of the instrument for the target pathology. When the evidence is completely unsatisfactory, Step 2 is a consensus process to define the US characteristics of the target pathology including one or more so-called “elementary lesions”. Step 3 applies the agreed definitions to the image, evaluates their reliability, develops a severity grading of the lesion(s) at a given anatomical site, and evaluates the effect of the acquisition technique on feasibility and lesion(s) detection. Step 4 applies and assesses the definition(s) and scoring system(s) in cross-sectional studies and multicenter trials. The imaging instrument is now ready to pass a final OFISA check.

Results.

With this process in place, the US WG now has 18 subgroups developing US instruments in 10 different diseases. Half of them have passed Step 3, and the groups for enthesitis (spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis), synovitis, and tenosynovitis (rheumatoid arthritis) have finished Step 4.

Conclusion.

The US WG approach to select and develop outcome measurement instruments based on imaging has been repeatedly and successfully applied in US, but is generic for imaging and fits with OMERACT Filter 2.1.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1).

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts.

RESULTS

The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms.

CONCLUSION

We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

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.

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders

OBJECTIVE

To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.

RESULTS

The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.

CONCLUSION

OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

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 rigor 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 3 original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed 4 signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties table that summarizes the 7 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 2 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 2 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.

Identifying Provisional Generic Contextual Factor Domains for Clinical Trials in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Initiative

Objective.

The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT.

Methods.

During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors.

Results.

A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important.

Conclusion.

The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.

Addressing Challenges in Developing a Core Domain Set in Adherence Interventions in Rheumatology: A Report from the OMERACT-Adherence Group

Objective.

The OMERACT-Adherence meeting was convened to discuss the conceptual and methodological challenges in developing a core domain set (Adherence-CDS) for trials of interventions for medication adherence in rheumatology.

Methods.

Forty participants from nine countries participated.

Results.

Four ideas emerged: for adherence trials, the Adherence-CDS could include adherence and the condition-specific CDS; many factors affect adherence and are intervention targets, contextual factors, or outcome domains; adherence is a critical factor in drug trials; and standardized adherence measures are needed.

Conclusion.

Despite the challenges, the meeting clarified an approach to developing an Adherence-CDS that complements existing OMERACT work and methodology.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined.

RESULTS

Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.

Are There Differences in Workplace Accommodation Needs, Use and Unmet Needs Among Older Workers With Arthritis, Diabetes and No Chronic Conditions? Examining the Role of Health and Work Context

The aging of workforces combined with the prevalence of age-related chronic diseases has generated interest in whether large numbers of older workers will need workplace accommodations. This research applied work functioning theory to examine accommodation availability, need and use in workers with arthritis, diabetes, or no chronic disabling diseases; factors associated with accommodation needs; and the relationship of accommodation needs met, unmet or exceeded to job outcomes. Participants were aged 50-67 years, employed, and had arthritis (n = 631), diabetes (n = 286), both arthritis/diabetes (n = 111) or no chronic disabling conditions (healthy controls n = 538). They were recruited from a national panel of 80,000 individuals and a cross-sectional survey was administered online or by telephone. Questionnaires assessed demographics, health, work context, workplace accommodations, and job outcomes. Chi-square analyses, analyses of variance, and regression analyses compared groups. Respondents were similar in many demographic and work context factors. As expected, workers with arthritis and/or diabetes often reported poorer health and employment outcomes. Yet, there were few differences across health conditions in need for or use of accommodations with most participants reporting accommodations needs met. In keeping with work functioning theory, unmet accommodation needs were largely related to work context, not health. Workers whose accommodation needs were exceeded reported better job outcomes than those with accommodation needs met. Findings highlight both work context and health in understanding workplace accommodations and suggest that many older workers can meet accommodation needs with existing workplace practices. However, additional research aimed at workplace support and the timing of accommodation use is needed.

Presurgery osteoarthritis severity over 10 years in 2 Ontario prospective total knee replacement cohorts: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that total knee replacement is being performed in people with less-severe osteoarthritis. We aimed to determine whether there were differences in the presurgery profile, symptoms and disability of 2 cohorts who underwent total knee replacement over a 10-year period.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-85 years undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis at 1 of 4 sites in Toronto and Strathroy, Ontario, were recruited in a cohort study during 2006-2008 (cohort 1) and 2012-2015 (cohort 2). Patients undergoing unicompartmental or revision arthroplasty were excluded. Demographic and health (body mass index [BMI], comorbidity) variables and osteoarthritis severity, as assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the disability component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI-D), were collected before surgery. We calculated proportions, means and standard deviations with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all data. We constructed density plots by tertile score for the WOMAC pain and physical function subscales and the LLFDI-D limitation scale.

RESULTS

There were 494 patients in cohort 1 and 251 patients in cohort 2. There were no differences in age, sex, education, living status, BMI, comorbidity, pain severity or disability between the cohorts based on overlapping 95% CIs and the density plots. More patients in cohort 1 than in cohort 2 were single (176 [35.6%], 95% CI 32.5%-41.1% v. 63 [25.1%], 95% CI 20.3%-31.0%). Patients in cohort 2 reported less limitation in higher-demand activities than did those in cohort 1 (mean score on LLFDI-D 62.3 [95% CI 60.7-63.9] v. 59.2 [95% CI 58.2-60.2]).

INTERPRETATION

The patient profile and reported osteoarthritis severity were similar in 2 cohorts that had total knee replacement over a 10-year period. This suggests that increasing total knee replacement volumes over this period likely were not driven by these factors.

Systematic Review of Measurement Property Evidence for 8 Financial Management Instruments in Populations With Acquired Cognitive Impairment

OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise the measurement property evidence (ie, psychometric) for 8 observation-based financial management assessment instruments.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched in May 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers used an independent decision-agreement process to select studies of measurement property evidence relevant to populations with adulthood acquired cognitive impairment, appraise the quality of the evidence, and extract data. Twenty-one articles were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

This review used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments review guidelines and 4-point tool to appraise evidence. After appraising the methodologic quality, the adequacy of results and volume of evidence per instrument were synthesized. Measurement property evidence with high risk of bias was excluded from the synthesis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The volume of measurement property evidence per instrument is low; most instruments had 1 to 3 included studies. Many included studies had poor methodologic quality per measurement property evidence area examined. Six of the 8 instruments reviewed had supporting construct validity/hypothesis-testing evidence of fair methodologic quality. There is a dearth of acceptable quality content validity, reliability, and responsiveness evidence for all 8 instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation practitioners assess financial management functions in adults with acquired cognitive impairments. However, there is limited published evidence to support using any of the reviewed instruments. Practitioners should exercise caution when interpreting the results of these instruments. This review highlights the importance of appraising the quality of measurement property evidence before examining the adequacy of the results and synthesizing the evidence.

A user's survey of the clinical application and content validity of the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure

STUDY DESIGN

Survey.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To elicit feedback on the clinical use and content validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure from frontline users of the instrument.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to registered DASH users and inquired about how the DASH was being used and to identify the informational value of items of the DASH (content validity).

RESULTS

About 172 completed the survey. One or both of the DASH and/or QuickDASH were consistently (89.5%) being used. About 90% were using it in adults (21-65 years), and at least 70% were using it across the entire extremity, and to a lesser extent, 10% reported using it in isolated neck injuries. Most respondents (66.9%-75.8%) were using the DASH in musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders, with some applying it for other more unique or non-MSK conditions (2.5%-16.6%). All but 1 of the 30 DASH items had at least 10% endorsement as being informative, and 4 items were identified as being problematic by greater than 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH is being used as intended (whole extremity and MSK conditions), and in addition, it is being used in different body regions and diverse conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable (descriptive survey).

Improvements in osteoporosis testing and care are found following the wide scale implementation of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening Program: An interrupted time series analysis

We evaluated a system-wide impact of a health intervention to improve treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture. The intervention consisted of assigning a screening coordinator to selected fracture clinics to identify, educate, and follow up with fragility fracture patients and inform their physicians of the need to evaluate bone health. Thirty-seven hospitals in the province of Ontario (Canada) were assigned a screening coordinator. Twenty-three similar hospitals were control sites. All hospitals had orthopedic services and handled moderate-to-higher volumes of fracture patients. Administrative health data were used to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Fragility fracture patients (≥50 years; hip, humerus, forearm, spine, or pelvis fracture) were identified from administrative health records. Cases were fractures treated at 1 of the 37 hospitals assigned a coordinator. Controls were the same types of fractures at the control sites. Data were assembled for 20 quarters before and 10 quarters after the implementation (from January 2002 to March 2010). To test for a shift in trends, we employed an interrupted time series analysis-a study design used to evaluate the longitudinal effects of interventions, through regression modelling. The primary outcome measure was bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence rates were secondary outcomes in a subset of patients ≥66 years of age.A total of 147,071 patients were used in the analysis. BMD testing rates increased from 17.0% pre-intervention to 20.9% post-intervention at intervention sites (P < .01) compared with no change at control sites (14.9% and 14.9%, P = .33). Medication initiation improved significantly at intervention sites (21.6-23.97%; P = .02) but not at control sites (17.5-18.5%; P = .27). Persistence with bisphosphonates decreased at all sites, from 59.9% to 56.4% at intervention sites (P = .02) and more so from 62.3% to 54.2% at control sites (P < .01) using 50% proportion of days covered (PDC 50).Significant improvements in BMD testing and treatment initiation were observed after the initiation of a coordinator-based screening program to improve osteoporosis management following fragility fracture.

Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program

We evaluated gender imbalance in osteoporosis management in a provincial coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. This establishes that a systemic approach with interventions for all fragility fracture patients can eliminate the gender inequity that is often observed.

INRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an Ontario-based fracture prevention program for its ability to address the well-documented gender imbalance in osteoporosis (OP) management, by incorporating its integrated fracture risk assessments within a needs-based evaluation of equity.

METHODS

Fragility fracture patients (≥ 50 years) who were treatment naïve at screening and completed follow-up within 6 months of screening were studied. Patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) testing done in the year prior to their current fracture were excluded. All participants had BMD testing conducted through the Ontario OP Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention program, thus providing us with fracture risk assessment data. Our primary study outcome was treatment initiation at follow-up within 6 months of screening. Gender differences were compared using Fisher's exact test, at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

After adjusting for subsequent fracture risk, study participants did not show a statistically significant gender difference in pharmacotherapy initiation at follow-up (p > 0.05). 68.4% of women and 66.2% of men at high risk were treated within 6 months of screening.

CONCLUSION

Needs-based analyses show no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. An intensive coordinator-based fracture prevention model adopted in Ontario, Canada was not associated with gender inequity in OP treatment of fragility fracture patients after fracture risk adjustment.

Rehabilitation, not injury or treatment details, dominate proximal humeral fracture patient concerns: a thematic analysis

Background, objectives, and aims: To provide treatment using a patient-centered care model, the provider must understand the needs and wants of the patient and ensure the patient has access to appropriate and necessary health information. The objective of this study was to determine what information is most desired by proximal humeral fracture patients following their injury.Methods: This qualitative study enrolled patients aged 60 years or older presenting with a proximal humeral fracture. Semi-structured interviews were conducted within one-month of injury and at 6-months post-injury. The interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Four themes (biomedical information, recovery, engagement opportunities and support available) emerged from the coded data. Within one-month post-injury, the most commonly identified themes were rehabilitation and support available. Six-months after the injury, the most commonly identified theme remained rehabilitation, while the second most frequently identified theme shifted to engagement opportunities. The biomedical information theme emerged infrequently at both interviews. Conclusions: Patient-centered care models for proximal humeral fracture patients could be improved by adapting to dynamic information concerns. While the effect of the injury on the patient’s rehabilitation remained the leading concern for the duration of the study period, secondary concerns did change over time. Providing germane information to patients at timely intervals supports patient-centered care, patient engagement and ultimately may improve patient care.

Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets

OBJECTIVE

While there has been substantial progress in the development of core outcomes sets, the degree to which these are used by researchers is variable. We convened a special workshop on knowledge translation at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 with 2 main goals. The first focused on the development of a formal knowledge translation framework and the second on promoting uptake of recommended core outcome domain and instrument sets.

METHODS

We invited all 189 OMERACT 2016 attendees to the workshop; 86 attended, representing patient research partners (n = 15), healthcare providers/clinician researchers (n = 52), industry (n = 4), regulatory agencies (n = 4), and OMERACT fellows (n = 11). Participants were given an introduction to knowledge translation and were asked to propose and discuss recommendations for the OMERACT community to (1) strengthen stakeholder involvement in the core outcome instrument set development process, and (2) promote uptake of core outcome sets with a specific focus on the potential role of post-regulatory decision makers.

RESULTS

We developed the novel "OMERACT integrated knowledge translation" framework, which formalizes OMERACT's knowledge translation strategies. We produced strategies to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the process of core outcome set development and created a list of creative and innovative ways to promote the uptake of OMERACT's core outcome sets.

CONCLUSION

The guidance provided in this paper is preliminary and is based on the views of the participants. Future work will engage OMERACT groups, "post-regulatory decision makers," and a broad range of different stakeholders to identify and evaluate the most useful methods and processes, and to revise guidance accordingly.

Patients' Perspectives on Outcomes of Care After Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Much effort has been expended to understand what care experiences patients value in the emergency department (ED), yet little is known about which outcomes patients value after ED care. Our goal is to define outcomes of ED care that are valued by patients discharged from the ED, with the goal of informing the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for ED care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with patients recruited during their care at 1 of 2 EDs and interviewed in either English or French 1 to 9 days after their visit. Patients who were hospitalized were excluded. Interviews focused on perceived outcomes of care since the ED visit and expectations of care before the ED visit. We identified themes with standard descriptive content analysis techniques and a modified version of the constant comparative method, drawing on grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

We interviewed 46 patients in English (n=38) or French (n=8). Participants with diverse reasons for seeking care appeared to value common outcomes from ED care that centered around 4 themes: understanding the cause and expected trajectory of their symptoms; reassurance; symptom relief; and having a plan to manage their symptoms, resolve their issue, or pursue further medical care. These themes were also reflected in the expectations participants recalled having when they decided to seek care in the ED.

CONCLUSION

The 4 outcomes defined constitute areas for improvement and will inform the development of an ED patient-reported outcome questionnaire. Consideration should be given to measuring patient-reported outcomes separately from patient experience.

An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group

Objective.

The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as “potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials.” Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials.

Methods.

First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF.

Results.

The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF.

Conclusion.

New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance.

Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator's role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program

We evaluated the impact of a more intensive version of an existing post-fracture coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found that the addition of a full-risk assessment improved treatment rates. These findings provide additional support for more intensive programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-fractures.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based guidelines support coordinator-based programs to improve post-fracture osteoporosis guideline uptake, with more intensive programs including bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or treatment being associated with better patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a more intensive version (BMD "fast track") of an existing provincial coordinator-based program.

METHODS

We compared two versions of the program that screened treatment naïve fragility fracture patients (>50 years). Cases came from the BMD fast track program that included full fracture risk assessment and communication of relevant guidelines to the primary care provider (PCP). Matched controls were selected from the usual care program matching according to age, sex, fracture type, and date. Two matching techniques were used: traditional (hard) matching (TM) and propensity score matching (PS). The outcomes were treatment initiation with bone sparing medication, BMD testing rate, and the rate of returning to discuss the test results with a PCP.

RESULTS

The program improvements led to a significant improvement in treatment initiation within 6 months from 16 % (controls based on PS) or 21 % (controls based on TM) to 32 % (cases). Ninety percent of patients in the BMD fast track program returned to their PCP to discuss bone health in the cases versus 60 % of the controls (for TM and PS). BMD testing occurred in 96 % of cases compared to the 66 (TM) or 65 % (PS) of the matched controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a full-risk assessment to a coordinator-based program significantly improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening.

Telemedicine delivery of patient education in remote Ontario communities: feasibility of an Advanced Clinician Practitioner in Arthritis Care (ACPAC)-led inflammatory arthritis education program

Objective

Telemedicine-based approaches to health care service delivery improve access to care. It was recognized that adults with inflammatory arthritis (IA) living in remote areas had limited access to patient education and could benefit from the 1-day Prescription for Education (RxEd) program. The program was delivered by extended role practitioners with advanced training in arthritis care. Normally offered at one urban center, RxEd was adapted for videoconference delivery through two educator development workshops that addressed telemedicine and adult education best practices. This study explores the feasibility of and participant satisfaction with telemedicine delivery of the RxEd program in remote communities.

Materials and methods

Participants included adults with IA attending the RxEd program at one of six rural sites. They completed post-course program evaluations and follow-up interviews. Educators provided post-course feedback to identify program improvements that were later implemented.

Results

In total, 123 people (36 in-person and 87 remote, across 6 sites) participated, attending one of three RxEd sessions. Remote participants were satisfied with the quality of the video-conference (% agree/strongly agree): could hear the presenter (92.9%) and discussion between sites (82.4%); could see who was speaking at other remote sites (85.7%); could see the slides (95.3%); and interaction between sites adequately facilitated (94.0%). Educator and participant feedback were consistent. Suggested improvements included: use of two screens (speaker and slides); frontal camera angles; equal interaction with remote sites; and slide modifications to improve the readability on screen. Interview data included similar constructive feedback but highlighted the educational and social benefits of the program, which participants noted would have been inaccessible if not offered via telemedicine.

Conclusion

Study findings confirm the feasibility of delivering the RxEd program to remote communities by using telemedicine. Future research with a focus on the sustainability of this and other models of technology-supported patient education for adults with IA across Ontario is warranted.

Health Equity Considerations for Developing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: A Report from the OMERACT Equity Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

Despite advances integrating patient-centered outcomes into rheumatologic studies, concerns remain regarding their representativeness across diverse patient groups and how this affects equity. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Working Group aims to determine whether and how to address equity issues within the core outcome sets of domains and instruments.

METHODS

We surveyed current and previous OMERACT meeting attendees and members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group regarding whether to address equity issues within the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Core Outcome Sets and how to assess the appropriateness of domains, instruments, and measurement properties among diverse patients. At OMERACT 2016, results of the survey and a narrative review of differential psychosocial effects of rheumatoid arthritis (i.e., on men) were presented to stimulate discussion and develop a research agenda.

RESULTS

We proposed 6 moments for which an equity lens could be added to the development, selection, or testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM): (1) recruitment, (2) domain selection, (3) feasibility in diverse settings, (4) instrument validity, (5) thresholds of meaning, and (6) consideration of statistical power of subgroup analyses for outcome reporting.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to (1) conduct a systematic review to assess how equity and population characteristics have been considered in PROM development and whether these differences influence the ranking of importance of outcome domains or a patient's response to questionnaire items, and (2) conduct the same survey described above with patients representing groups experiencing health inequities.

The impact of fragility fractures on work and characteristics associated with time to return to work

We examined the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of employed patients. The majority successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore the fast recovery rates of working fragility fracture patients.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of patients who were employed at the time of their fracture.

METHODS

A self-report anonymous survey was mailed to fragility fracture patients over 50 who were screened as part of the quality assurance programs of fracture clinics across 35 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Measures of return to work (RTW), at-work productivity loss (Work Limitations Questionnaire), and sociodemographic, fracture-related, and job characteristics were included in the survey. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative proportion of patients still off work were computed. Factors associated with RTW time following a fragility fracture were examined using Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Of 275 participants, 242 (88 %) returned to work. Of these, the median RTW time was 20.5 days. About 86 % returned to the same job, duties, and hours as before their injury. Among full-time workers, the median number of lost hours due to presenteeism was 2.9 h (Q1-Q3 0.4-8.1 h). The median cost of presenteeism was $75.30 based on the month prior to survey completion. In multivariable analyses, female gender, needing surgery, and medium/heavy work requirements were associated with longer RTW time. Earlier RTW time was associated with elbow fracture and feeling completely better at time of survey completion.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of fragility fracture patients successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore their fast recovery rates and give reason for optimism regarding the resilience of this population.

Symptom Resolution and Patient-Perceived Recovery Following Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

Patients' perception of outcomes is not always defined by the absence of limitations/symptoms (resolution), but can also be characterized by behavioral adaptation and cognitive coping arising in cases with residual deficits. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) are designed to measure levels of function or symptoms, largely missing whether patients are coping with ongoing limitations. This study aimed to broaden the conventional definition of a "satisfactory" outcome following ankle reconstruction by comparing patient-reported outcomes of patients with and without residual symptoms and limitations.

METHODS

The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey of ankle arthroplasty (n = 85) and arthrodesis (n = 15) patients. Outcome measures included the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, Short Form-12, and EuroQol-5 Dimension. Patients also completed measures of pain (0-10), stiffness (0-10), satisfaction (0-3), and ability to complete activities of daily living (ADL) (0-6). Based on a self-reported question regarding recovery and coping, patients were categorized as "Recovered-Resolved" (better with no symptoms or residual effects), "Recovered, not Resolved" (RNR, better with residual effects), or "Not Recovered" (not better). Recovery groups were compared across measures.

RESULTS

Only 15% of patients were categorized Recovered-Resolved. Most were RNR (69%), leaving 14% Not Resolved. Recovered-Resolved experienced lower rates of pain (1.4 ± 2.3), stiffness (1.1 ± 2.6), and difficulty performing ADLs (0.9 ± 1.2). Overall, outcome measure scores were high (ie, better health) for Recovered-Resolved patients, midrange for RNR patients, and low for Not Recovered patients, thus confirming predefined hypotheses. Recovered-Resolved and RNR patients had similarly high satisfaction summary scores (3.0 ± 0.0 vs 2.6 ± 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Most patients reported positive outcomes, but few (15%) experienced resolution of all symptoms and limitations. Current PROs focus on achieving low levels of symptoms and limitations, but miss an important achievement when patients are brought to a level of residual deficits with which they can cope. Patients' perceptions of satisfactory outcomes were not predicated on the resolution of all limitations; thus, the conventional definition of "satisfactory" outcomes should be expanded accordingly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now?

Outcome measurement is an essential component for defining the effectiveness of clinicians’ practice (Reiman 1988) and standardised measures make that job more consistent, comparable and valid (Cole et al 1994). Hand therapists have long recognised the need for the standardisation of outcome measures, particularly for performance-based measures such as strength testing (Mathiowetz et al 1985, Woody et al 1988) or joint motion. More recently there has been an increased interest in outcome measures that capture the patient's perspective of their status, and that are standardised. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) is a standardised outcome measure that could be used for this purpose (Hudak et al 1996, McConnell et al 1999). The DASH reflects the impact of a disorder in terms of physical function and symptoms, which are the two main reasons patients seek care for a disorder of the musculoskeletal system. The DASH is becoming widely used by clinicians and researchers (McConnell et al 1999). It is now important to revisit what we know about how well the DASH is able to measure what it purports to measure.

The purpose of this paper is to review the research that has been done to date on the DASH outcome measure, and to describe the implications of this for future research and for clinical practice.