Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance: Face and Content Validity

PURPOSE

To investigate face and content validity of a draft measure to be used across Canada to assess physiotherapy students' performance in clinical education, through broad consultation with physiotherapy clinical instructors (CIs) across Canada.

METHODS

An online survey was used to collect input on the draft measure. In addition to demographics, the questionnaire included questions on the preferred rating scale, the items within the measure that should have their own rating scale, and general impressions.

RESULTS

Among the 259 CIs who completed the survey, a discrete rating scale with six anchors and 10 boxes or a continuous-line rating scale with six anchors was preferred. Respondents favoured using one rating scale for each key competency in the Expert role but considered a single rating scale sufficient for assessing the Scholarly Practitioner role. CIs agreed that the proposed measure would allow them to assess a student who was performing poorly or very well. The name Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP) received the most votes in the questionnaire.

CONCLUSIONS

CIs' collective preferences on the design, organization, and naming of the measure they will use in evaluating students are reflected in the second draft of the ACP.

A prospective comparison of telemedicine versus in-person delivery of an interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis

Introduction We evaluated two modes of delivery of an inflammatory arthritis education program ("Prescription for Education" (RxEd)) in improving arthritis self-efficacy and other secondary outcomes. Methods We used a non-randomized, pre-post design to compare videoconferencing (R, remote using telemedicine) versus local (I, in-person) delivery of the program. Data were collected at baseline (T₁), immediately following RxEd (T₂), and at six months (T₃). Self-report questionnaires served as the data collection tool. Measures included demographics, disorder-related, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (SE), previous knowledge (Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit (ACREU) rheumatoid arthritis knowledge questionnaire), coping efficacy, Illness Intrusiveness, and Effective Consumer Scale. Analysis included: baseline comparisons and longitudinal trends (R vs I groups); direct between-group comparisons; and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analysis. Results A total of 123 persons attended the program (I: n = 36; R: n = 87) and 111 completed the baseline questionnaire (T₁), with follow-up completed by 95% ( n = 117) at T₂ and 62% ( n = 76) at T₃. No significant baseline differences were found across patient characteristics and outcome measures. Both groups (R and I) showed immediate effect (improved arthritis SE, mean change (95% confidence interval (CI)): R 1.07 (0.67, 1.48); I 1.48 (0.74, 2.23)) after the program that diminished over six months (mean change (95% CI): R 0.45 (-0.1, 0.1); I 0.73 (-0.25, 1.7)). For each of the secondary outcomes, both groups showed similar trends for improvement (mean change scores (95% CI)) over time. GEE analysis did not show any meaningful differences between groups (R vs I) over time. Discussion Improvements in arthritis self-efficacy and secondary outcomes displayed similar trends for I and R participant groups.

Comparison of CAROC and FRAX in Fragility Fracture Patients: Agreement, Clinical Utility, and Implications for Clinical Practice

Objective.

To examine the level of agreement between 2 fracture risk assessment tools [Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada (CAROC) and Canadian Fracture Risk Assessment (FRAX)] when applied within the context of the Canadian guidelines, in a population of fragility fracture patients.

Methods.

The sample consisted of 135 treatment-naive fragility fracture patients aged 50+ years and screened as part of an osteoporosis (OP) program at an urban hospital. Ten-year probabilities of future major osteoporotic fractures were calculated using the FRAX and CAROC. We also integrated additional qualifiers from the 2010 Canadian guidelines that place hip, spine, and multiple fractures at high risk regardless. A quadratic weighted κ (Kw) and 95% CI were calculated to estimate the chance corrected agreement between the risk assessment tools. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the factors associated with concordance.

Results.

Among patients with fragility fractures, the agreement between CAROC and FRAX was Kw = 0.64 (95% CI 0.58–0.71), with 45 of 135 cases in the cells reflecting disagreement. Younger persons and males were more likely to be found in discordant cells.

Conclusion.

The level of agreement between 2 commonly used fracture risk assessment tools was not as high in the patients with fragility fractures as it was in general community-based samples. Our results suggest discordance is found in less-typical patients with OP who need more consistency in messaging and direction. Users of these fracture risk tools should be aware of the potential for discordance and note differences in risk classifications that may affect treatment decisions.

Evidence of Reliability, Validity, and Practicality for the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance

Purpose: To investigate the internal consistency, construct validity, and practicality of the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP), a descriptive measure used by physiotherapy students and their clinical instructors (CIs) at the mid- and endpoints of an internship to describe the students' behaviours as observed in the clinical education setting relative to what might be expected of an entry-level physiotherapist. Methods: This multi-centre study piloted the ACP in 10 university physiotherapy (PT) programmes. Both CIs and students undertaking clinical internships completed the ACP and the current tool, the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument (PT-CPI; Version 1997). Results: CIs assessing PT students' performance during internships representing a variety of areas of practice completed the ACP at the midpoint (n=132) and the endpoint (n=126) of the internship. The end-of-internship sample consisted of 55 junior, 30 intermediate, and 41 senior students. The ACP demonstrated strong internal consistency: Alpha coefficients for each role ranged from 0.94 to 0.99. Aligned items on the ACP and PT-CPI were significantly correlated (r=0.51-0.84). Senior PT students performed significantly better than intermediate students, who, in turn, performed better than junior students (p<0.0001). Effect sizes for midpoint to final scores on the ACP ranged from medium to large (0.40-0.74). Participants were satisfied with the online education module that provided instruction on how to use and interpret the ACP, as indicated by satisfaction scores and qualitative comments. Conclusions: The ACP is a reliable, valid, and practical measure to assess and describe the PT students' behaviours as observed during clinical education relative to what is expected of an entry-level physiotherapist.

Job Accommodations Availability and Utilization Among People With Lupus: An Examination of Workplace Activity Limitations and Work Context Factors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the availability of diverse job accommodations (or flexible working arrangements) and to describe their use among people with systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), as well as to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations.

METHODS

A mail survey was sent to adult lupus patients receiving care from a lupus clinic based in Toronto, Canada. The survey assessed demographic information, self-reported disease activity, work history, workplace activity limitations, job strain, and the availability and use of job accommodations. Standard multivariable linear regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with the use of job accommodations.

RESULTS

We received 362 responses of 604 mailed surveys (60% response rate). Participants who were employed within the last 5 years, but who were not currently working, were less likely than currently employed participants to report having had job accommodations available to them at their last place of employment. The use of job accommodations was reported by 70% of currently employed respondents and by 72% of those not currently employed. The most common job accommodation used was sick leave days. Factors positively associated with the use of job accommodations among those who were employed included higher levels of education, being diagnosed with fibromyalgia, at least 1 episode of short-term work disability, not belonging to a union, greater workplace activity limitations, and greater job strain.

CONCLUSION

The use of job accommodations among people with lupus is common. Work context factors, such as workplace activity limitations and job strain, are the main factors associated with the use of job accommodations.

Test-retest Reliability and Correlations of 5 Global Measures Addressing At-work Productivity Loss in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases

OBJECTIVE

Several global measures to assess at-work productivity loss or presenteeism in patients with rheumatic diseases have been proposed, but the comparative validity is hampered by the lack of data on test-retest reliability and comparative concurrent and construct validity. Our objective was to test-retest 5 global measures of presenteeism and to compare the association between these scales and health-related well-being.

METHODS

Sixty-five participants with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis in paid employment were recruited from 7 countries (UK, Canada, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Romania, and Italy). At baseline and 2 weeks later, 5 global measures of presenteeism were evaluated: the Work Productivity Scale-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index (WAI), Quality and Quantity questionnaire (QQ), and the WHO Health and Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Agreement between the 2 timepoints was assessed using single-measure intraclass correlations (ICC) and correlated between each other and with visual analog scale general well-being scores at followup by Spearman correlation.

RESULTS

ICC between measures ranged from fair (HPQ 0.59) to excellent (WPS-RA 0.78). Spearman correlations between measures were moderate (Qquality vs WAI, r = 0.51) to strong (WPS-RA vs WPAI, r = 0.88). Correlations between measures and general well-being were low to moderate, ranging from -0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.66.

CONCLUSION

Test-retest results of 4 out of 5 global measures were good, and the correlations between these were moderate. The latter probably reflect differences in the concepts, recall periods, and references used in the measures, which implies that some measures are probably not interchangeable.

Structural and construct validity of the Whiplash Disability Questionnaire in adults with acute whiplash-associated disorders

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Few instruments are available to measure disability associated with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). The Whiplash Disability Questionnaire (WDQ) was developed to measure disability resulting from WAD, but its validity is unknown for acute WAD.

PURPOSE

The aim was to determine the structural and construct validity of the WDQ in individuals with acute WAD.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This was a cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Ontario adults with WAD were enrolled within 3 weeks of their motor vehicle collision.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The outcome measure was the WDQ.

METHODS

We included insurance claimants who were aged 18 years or older and diagnosed with acute WAD Grades I to III. All participants completed the WDQ, a 13-item questionnaire scored from 0 (no disability) to 130 (complete disability). We assessed the factor structure of the WDQ and tested its construct validity against self-perceived recovery, neck pain (Numerical Rating Scale [NRS]), neck disability (Neck Disability Index [NDI] and Neck Bournemouth Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]), and depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [CES-D]).

RESULTS

The mean age of the 130 participants was 42.1 years (standard deviation [SD]=13.2), and 70% were women. Twenty-six percent had WAD I, 73.1% had WAD II, and 0.8% had WAD III. Mean time since injury was 6.5 days (SD=4.9). The mean WDQ score was 49.8 (SD=29.1). Our analysis suggested that the WDQ includes two factors: daily activities and emotional status. This factor structure remained stable in sensitivity analyses (eg, zeros imputed for missing values, and the item with the most missing values or resulting in complex loading excluded). Strong correlations were found between the total WDQ score and the NDI, the Bournemouth questionnaire, the SF-36 physical function, and the NRS (for the neck, shoulder, mid and low back pain) satisfying a priori hypotheses. We found a priori hypothesized moderate correlations between the WDQ, and the CES-D and SF-36 mental function.

CONCLUSIONS

The WDQ includes two factors and has strong construct validity in individuals with acute WAD. Our results demonstrate that the WDQ is valid for use as an overall summative scale or as the daily activities and emotional subscales in clinical and research settings to determine disability status.

Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials

OBJECTIVES

To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in published randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions for shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, or nonspecific shoulder pain).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included trials comparing physical therapy to any other intervention for shoulder pain, indexed up to March 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, or CINAHL Plus. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported.

RESULTS

We included 171 trials. Most trials measured pain (87%), function (72%), and range of movement (67%), whereas adverse events, global assessment of treatment success, strength, and health-related quality of life were measured in 18-27% of trials, and work disability and referral for surgery were measured in less than 5% of trials. Thirty-five different measurement instruments for pain and 29 for function were noted. Measurement of function increased markedly from 1973 to 2014. In rotator cuff disease trials, there was a more frequent measurement of pain and strength and a less frequent measurement of range of movement compared with adhesive capsulitis trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core domain and outcome measurement set for use in future shoulder pain trials.

The impact of co-morbid mental and physical disorders on presenteeism

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to: (i) explore the impact of mood disorders (such as depression, bipolar disorder, mania, or dysthymia) and five age-related chronic physical conditions (arthritis, back pain, diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension) on presenteeism (as indicated by self-reported activity limitations at work), and (ii) examine how mood disorders interact with each physical condition to affect this work outcome.

METHODS

Using Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) data, we modeled the relationships between self-reported restrictions at work and each health condition. We then calculated synergy indices (SI) for the interaction between mood disorders and each of the five physical conditions.

RESULTS

All six health conditions were associated with presenteeism. The strongest association was observed for back pain [prevalence ratio (PR) 2.70, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.57-2.83] and the weakest for hypertension (PR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11-1.25). The unadjusted SI indicated no interactions between mood disorders and any of the physical conditions, while the adjusted SI indicated statistically significant interactions between mood disorders and each of the five physical conditions. The statistically significant adjusted interactions were in a negative direction, such that having a mood disorder concurrent with a chronic physical condition was associated with a lower burden of presenteeism than expected. Post-hoc analyses revealed that this unexpected finding was attributable to adjustment for other co-morbid health conditions, particularly arthritis and back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that targeting chronic physical conditions or mood disorders may be productive in reducing presenteeism. The combined effect on presenteeism when the two types of conditions occur simultaneously is similar to the additive effect of these conditions when each occurs in isolation.

A Call for Evidence-based Decision Making When Selecting Outcome Measurement Instruments for Summary of Findings Tables in Systematic Reviews: Results from an OMERACT Working Group

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews often struggle with how to combine information when more than 1 instrument is used across studies being synthesized. Different techniques have been suggested based on frequency of use in the literature, or on consensus. We explore an approach blending 2 initiatives: OMERACT (Outcome Measurement in Rheumatology) and COSMIN (Consensus On Selection of Measurement Instruments), and investigate the effects of an evidence-based measurement approach on selection of outcomes.

METHODS

Readings were circulated to attendees registered for a preconference workshop on pain measurement. Three instruments were considered and exercises conducted to engage people in the content and measurement performance of these tools. Consensus was sought that an evidence-based approach could be created for selection of instruments for summary of findings (SoF) tables.

RESULTS

The blending of COSMIN and OMERACT approaches led to an evidence-based approach that depended both on a clear definition of target concept and a review of measurement performance of the instrument. Participants emphasized that conceptual clarity and practical considerations should come before measurement property results.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based approaches can be adopted for selection of instruments for SoF tables. A research agenda was formulated.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers.

METHODS

We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

OMERACT Filter Evidence Supporting the Measurement of At-work Productivity Loss as an Outcome Measure in Rheumatology Research

OBJECTIVE

Indicators of work role functioning (being at work, and being productive while at work) are important outcomes for persons with arthritis. As the worker productivity working group at OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology), we sought to provide an evidence base for consensus on standardized instruments to measure worker productivity [both absenteeism and at-work productivity (presenteeism) as well as critical contextual factors].

METHODS

Literature reviews and primary studies were done and reported to the OMERACT 12 (2014) meeting to build the OMERACT Filter 2.0 evidence for worker productivity outcome measurement instruments. Contextual factor domains that could have an effect on scores on worker productivity instruments were identified by nominal group techniques, and strength of influence was further assessed by literature review.

RESULTS

At OMERACT 9 (2008), we identified 6 candidate measures of absenteeism, which received 94% endorsement at the plenary vote. At OMERACT 11 (2012) we received over the required minimum vote of 70% for endorsement of 2 at-work productivity loss measures. During OMERACT 12 (2014), out of 4 measures of at-work productivity loss, 3 (1 global; 2 multiitem) received support as having passed the OMERACT Filter with over 70% of the plenary vote. In addition, 3 contextual factor domains received a 95% vote to explore their validity as core contextual factors: nature of work, work accommodation, and workplace support.

CONCLUSION

Our current recommendations for at-work productivity loss measures are: WALS (Workplace Activity Limitations Scale), WLQ PDmod (Work Limitations Questionnaire with modified physical demands scale), WAI (Work Ability Index), WPS (Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey), and WPAI (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire). Our future research focus will shift to confirming core contextual factors to consider in the measurement of worker productivity.

Development of the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance: A New Tool to Assess Physiotherapy Students' Performance in Clinical Education

PURPOSE

To develop the first draft of a Canadian tool to assess physiotherapy (PT) students' performance in clinical education (CE). Phase 1: to gain consensus on the items within the new tool, the number and placement of the comment boxes, and the rating scale; Phase 2: to explore the face and content validity of the draft tool.

METHODS

Phase 1 used the Delphi method; Phase 2 used cognitive interviewing methods with recent graduates and clinical instructors (CIs) and detailed interviews with clinical education and measurement experts.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on the first draft of the new tool by round 3 of the Delphi process, which was completed by 21 participants. Interviews were completed with 13 CIs, 6 recent graduates, and 7 experts. Recent graduates and CIs were able to interpret the tool accurately, felt they could apply it to a recent CE experience, and provided suggestions to improve the draft. Experts provided salient advice.

CONCLUSIONS

The first draft of a new tool to assess PT students in CE, the Canadian Physiotherapy Assessment of Clinical Performance (ACP), was developed and will undergo further development and testing, including national consultation with stakeholders. Data from Phase 2 will contribute to developing an online education module for CIs and students.

Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures are increasingly used evaluating clinical care. Many measures used to assess operative hindfoot interventions vary in content, and some have not been psychometrically validated in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare measurement properties of 6 lower-extremity patient-reported outcome measures, and to evaluate their reliability and validity in light of patients' preferences.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of 42 preoperative and 100 postoperative patients completed 6 lower-extremity outcome measures on 2 occasions: Foot Function Index (FFI), Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS), patient-reported items of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Questionnaire (AOFAS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA), as well as measures of preference, and symptoms.

RESULTS

Internal consistency was good to excellent for all scales and subscales (α = .84-.97; ICC [2,1] = .81-.96). Correlations between scales ranged from .50 (WOMAC(Stiffness) and FFI(Activity) Limitations) to .92 (LEFS and SMFA(Overall), WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Overall), FFI(Overall) and AOFAS(Overall)). Higher correlations occurred within instruments (r = .97 AOS(Pain) and AOS(Overall)) and between similar subscales from different instruments (r = .91 WOMAC(Pain) and AOS(Pain)). Construct validity showed moderate to high correlations to global ratings of Pain, Stiffness, and difficulty performing Daily Activities. The highest correlations (r > .75) occurred between Pain and AOS(Overall) (r = .84), stiffness and WOMAC(Stiffness) (r = .81), and Daily Activities and AOS(Disability) (r = .87). Patients rated instruments by preference. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and SMFA rated favorably for length. FFI, WOMAC, LEFS, and AOFAS rated high for understandability. FFI was rated by postoperative patients as most likely to capture change due to surgery. SMFA rated the best overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct comparison of instruments revealed similarity between scales in construct validity and reliability. Patient preferences supported the use of these scales. Foot-specific instruments offered no clear advantage over lower-extremity instruments.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Does the Upper-Limb Work Instability Scale Predict Transitions Out of Work Among Injured Workers?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the predictive ability of the Upper-Limb Work Instability Scale (UL-WIS) for transitioning out of work among injured workers with chronic, work-related upper extremity disorders (WRUEDs).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a 12-month cohort study with data collection at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. Survey questionnaires were used to collect data on an array of sociodemographic, health-related, and work-related variables.

SETTING

Upper extremity specialty clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Injured workers (N=356) with WRUEDs who were working at the time of initial clinic attendance.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Transitioning out of work.

RESULTS

Multivariable logistic regression that considered 9 potential confounders revealed baseline UL-WIS (range, 0-17) to be a statistically significant predictor of a subsequent transition out of work (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.31; P=.001). An assessment of predictive values across the UL-WIS score range identified cut-scores of <6 (negative predictive value, .81; 95% CI, .62-.94) and >15 (positive predictive value, .80; 95% CI, .52-.96), differentiating the scale into 3 bands representing low, moderate, and high risk of exiting work.

CONCLUSIONS

The UL-WIS was shown to be an independent predictor of poor work sustainability among injured workers with chronic WRUEDs; however, when applied as a standalone tool in clinical settings, some limits to its predictive accuracy should also be recognized.

Dialogue on Developing Consensus on Measurement and Presentation of Patient-important Outcomes, Using Pain Outcomes as an Exemplar, in Systematic Reviews: A Preconference Meeting at OMERACT 12

Prior to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 12 meeting in Budapest, Hungary, a workshop was held bringing together individuals from a number of international outcome measure organizations to assess how best to further develop consensus on how pain is conceptualized and measured in trials of musculoskeletal conditions, and how the trials should be reported in systematic reviews.

Striking a balance: work-health-personal life conflict in women and men with arthritis and its association with work outcomes

PURPOSE

To examine men and women's perceptions of inter-role balance/imbalance in work, arthritis, and personal roles and its association with demographic, health and employment factors, including job stress, career satisfaction, job disruptions, absenteeism and perceived productivity losses.

METHODS

Participants were employed, aged ≥40 years and diagnosed with osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis. They were recruited through community advertising and rheumatology clinics in two Canadian provinces. Respondents completed a 35-45 min telephone interview and a 20-min self-administered questionnaire assessing role perceptions [(arthritis negatively impacts work (A → W); work/personal life negatively impact arthritis (W/P → A); work as a positive role (W +))], demographic, health and work context information. Analyses included exploratory factor analysis and multivariate regressions.

RESULTS

Findings revealed similarities between men (n = 104) and women (n = 248) in health, work and role perceptions, although women reported more benefits of working with arthritis (W+) than men. Some gender differences were found in factors associated with inter-role perceptions highlighting the importance of children, fatigue, unpredictable work hours, job control, and workplace activity limitations. Role perceptions were associated with work outcomes but only one perception, W/P → A, interacted with gender. Among men, greater perceptions that work and personal demands interfered with managing arthritis were associated with more job disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed negative and positive inter-role perceptions related to working with a chronic illness and associations with work outcomes. It highlights potentially modifiable factors that could assess risk and inform interventions to improve role balance and working experiences.

Work factors are associated with workplace activity limitations in systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the extent of workplace activity limitations among persons with lupus and to identify factors associated with activity limitations among those employed.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study using a mailed survey and clinical data of persons with lupus who attended a large lupus outpatient clinic. Data were collected on demographics, health, work factors and psychosocial measures. The workplace activity limitations scale (WALS) was used to measure difficulty related to different activities at work. Multivariable analysis examined the association of health, work context, psychosocial and demographic variables with workplace activity limitations.

RESULTS

We received 362 responses from 604 (60%) mailed surveys. Among those not employed, 52% reported not working because of lupus. A range of physical and mental tasks were reported as difficult. Each of the physical, cognitive and energy work activities was cited as difficult by more than one-third of participants. Among employed participants, 40% had medium to high WALS difficulty scores. In the multivariable analysis, factors significantly associated with workplace activity limitations were older age, greater disease activity, fatigue, poorer health status measured by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, lower job control, greater job strain and working more than 40 h/week.

CONCLUSION

People with lupus experience limitations and difficulty at work. Determinants of workplace activity limitations are mainly those related to workplace and health factors.

Updating the OMERACT filter: discrimination and feasibility

The "Discrimination" part of the OMERACT Filter asks whether a measure discriminates between situations that are of interest. "Feasibility" in the OMERACT Filter encompasses the practical considerations of using an instrument, including its ease of use, time to complete, monetary costs, and interpretability of the question(s) included in the instrument. Both the Discrimination and Reliability parts of the filter have been helpful but were agreed on primarily by consensus of OMERACT participants rather than through explicit evidence-based guidelines. In Filter 2.0 we wanted to improve this definition and provide specific guidance and advice to participants.

Updating the OMERACT filter: implications for imaging and soluble biomarkers

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides a framework for the validation of outcome measures for use in rheumatology clinical research. However, imaging and biochemical measures may face additional validation challenges because of their technical nature. The Imaging and Soluble Biomarker Session at OMERACT 11 aimed to provide a guide for the iterative development of an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument so it can be used in therapeutic assessment.

METHODS

A hierarchical structure was proposed, reflecting 3 dimensions needed for validating an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument: outcome domain(s), study setting, and performance of the instrument. Movement along the axes in any dimension reflects increasing validation. For a given test instrument, the 3-axis structure assesses the extent to which the instrument is a validated measure for the chosen domain, whether it assesses a patient-centered or disease-centered variable, and whether its technical performance is adequate in the context of its application. Some currently used imaging and soluble biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and knee osteoarthritis were then evaluated using the original OMERACT Filter and the newly proposed structure. Breakout groups critically reviewed the extent to which the candidate biomarkers complied with the proposed stepwise approach, as a way of examining the utility of the proposed 3-dimensional structure.

RESULTS

Although there was a broad acceptance of the value of the proposed structure in general, some areas for improvement were suggested including clarification of criteria for achieving a certain level of validation and how to deal with extension of the structure to areas beyond clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

General support was obtained for a proposed tri-axis structure to assess validation of imaging and soluble biomarkers; nevertheless, additional work is required to better evaluate its place within the OMERACT Filter 2.0.

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Implications for Patient-reported Outcomes

Objective.

At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the “Truth” statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent these new Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied.

Methods.

Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.

Results.

Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons.

Conclusion.

Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients.

Factors influencing the pharmacological management of osteoporosis after fragility fracture: results from the Ontario Osteoporosis Strategy's fracture clinic screening program

Potential mediating factors in the pathway to initiation of osteoporosis treatment following a fragility fracture were evaluated. Patients' perceived need for treatment, mediated by their perception of bone density test results, was central to treatment initiation. Interventions focusing on patients' perceptions of need and test results may improve treatment rates.

INTRODUCTION

We tested a hypothesized pathway to osteoporosis (OP) pharmacotherapy initiation in fragility fracture patients. We hypothesized that bone mineral density (BMD) testing is strongly associated with treatment initiation and perception of BMD test results would inform patients' perceived need for treatment, which would mediate the effect between BMD testing and treatment initiation.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study followed patients, ≥50 years of age, screened for fragility fracture in 31 fracture clinics in Ontario, Canada who had no prior diagnosis of or treatment for OP. At screening, OP risk factors, baseline-patient perception of OP risk, OP knowledge, and perceived benefits of medication were reported by patients. Patients were followed up within 6 months of fracture to determine BMD testing and prescription of and adherence to first-line OP pharmacotherapy. Structural equation modeling tested the hypothesized pathway. Significance and magnitude of the coefficients and indicators of overall model fit were used to test our model.

RESULTS

The direct path from BMD testing to OP treatment initiation was non-significant. The pathway to treatment initiation was mediated by patients' perception of their need, which was influenced by their self-reported BMD results. Baseline fracture risk factors, knowledge of OP, and perceived benefits of treatment-predicted patient-perceived need for treatment at follow-up and initiation of OP treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient perceptions were central factors in the path to initiation of OP pharmacotherapy. Interventions to facilitate accurate patient perceptions of BMD test results and OP risk status could prove helpful in improving OP treatment initiation.

Bone mineral density testing after fragility fracture: Informative test results likely

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of patients with fragility fractures who can be expected to have low bone mineral density (BMD) at the time of fracture and to assist FPs in deciding whether to refer patients for BMD testing.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest available dates through September 2009.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language articles reporting BMD test results of patients with fragility fractures who were managed in an orthopedic environment (eg, fracture clinic, emergency management by orthopedic surgeons, inpatients) were eligible for review. While the orthopedic environment has been identified as an ideal point for case finding, FPs are often responsible for investigation and treatment. Factors that potentially influenced BMD test results (eg, selection of fracture types, exclusion criteria) were identified. Studies with 2 or more selection factors of potential influence were flagged, and rates of low BMD were calculated including and excluding these studies.

SYNTHESIS

The distribution of the proportion of persons with low BMD was summarized across studies using descriptive statistics. We calculated lower boundaries on this distribution, using standard statistical thresholds, to determine a lower threshold of the expected rate of low BMD.

CONCLUSION

Family physicians evaluating patients with fragility fractures can expect that at least two-thirds of patients with fragility fractures who are older than 50 years of age will have low BMD (T score ≤ -1.0). With this a priori expectation, FPs might more readily conduct a fracture risk assessment and pursue warranted fracture risk reduction strategies following fragility fracture.