Experience and Context Shape Patient and Clinician Goals For Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Qualitative Study

Are We on the Same Page? A Cross-Sectional Study of Patient-Clinician Goal Concordance in Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Patient-clinician goal concordance is associated with improved outcomes in certain chronic diseases but not explored in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We examined goal concordance, correlates of concordance, and the association of concordance with health outcomes.

METHODS

Adult patients with RA seen at least 1 time in the prior 12 months at 1 of 2 rheumatology clinics participated. Patients and their clinicians independently ranked top 3 goals for RA treatment from 8 options before a routine visit. Patients completed postvisit surveys on health, demographic information, health literacy, and adherence. Goal concordance was defined as the patient's number 1 goal being among the clinician's top 3 goals for that patient. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine correlates of concordance.

RESULTS

Patients were 58% female and 16% Spanish-speaking, and 29% had limited health literacy. Among 204 patient-clinician dyads, 20% were goal-discordant. "Have less pain" was selected by both patient and clinician in 81% of dyads, followed by "have fewer problems doing daily activities" by 63%. Otherwise, clinicians prioritized avoiding side effects, whereas patients ranked improved sleep, fatigue, and mood. Longer disease duration was associated with discordance (median 13.3 years, interquartile range [IQR] 5.2-20 among discordant vs. 7 years, IQR 4-14; P = 0.039); higher depressive symptoms were associated with concordance (8.1% vs. 24%; P = 0.04). Goal concordance was associated with higher medication adherence (adjusted odds ratio 2.76 [95% confidence interval 1.01, 7.56]).

CONCLUSION

One in 5 patient-clinician dyads had discordant treatment goals. Goal concordance was associated with higher medication adherence. Studies to improve goal elicitation and communication of patients with RA's priorities are needed.

A multidisciplinary-led early arthritis service to manage client-identified participation restrictions in early inflammatory arthritis: A qualitative study of service user and staff perspectives

BACKGROUND

The impact of inflammatory arthritis (IA) on occupational performance and on participation in meaningful life roles is recognised. However, limited research has explored how clinical services support broader life impact and participation restrictions associated with early disease as part of routine healthcare. This exploratory study was undertaken to describe how a novel multidisciplinary-led early arthritis service approach addresses client-identified participation restrictions in early IA.

METHODS

Qualitative Description (QD) approaches were used to explore perspectives of staff and clients of these multidisciplinary-led early arthritis services in Ireland. Data were gathered using focus groups with staff, and individual semi-structured interviews with clients. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen staff working in these services participated in the focus groups and 43 clients with IA participated in interviews (female n = 31); diagnosis duration ranged from 5 to 24 months. Participants described how the multidisciplinary-led service had a clear remit to address participation alongside traditional symptom management and provided automatic, immediate access to interventions focussed on identification and management of participation restrictions experienced in early disease. The service model utilised a delivery approach that allowed for ease of early access to a full multidisciplinary team and prolonged support. The most significant feature of the service approach was 'the centrality of the client' which influenced a person-centred approach to identification of needs and priorities for interventions.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate the role and value of this innovative multidisciplinary approach in addressing client-identified participation restrictions in routine clinical practice that is positively regarded by clients and staff.

Beyond Empowerment in Rheumatology Care

In this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology, Carluzzo et al¹ explored different factors that contribute to the empowerment of individuals with arthritis. The study used data obtained from 12,560 US participants in the Live Yes! INSIGHTS program, based on sociodemographic information and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) about physical and mental health, emotional support, and empowerment.

"It may help you to know…": The Early-phase Qualitative Development of a Rheumatoid Arthritis Goal Elicitation Tool

OBJECTIVE

Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a patient-centered approach and shared decision making, which includes a discussion of patient goals. We describe the iterative early development of a structured goal elicitation tool to facilitate goal communication for persons with RA and their clinicians.

METHODS

Tool development occurred in 3 phases: (1) clinician feedback on the initial prototype during a communication training session; (2) semistructured interviews with RA patients; and (3) community stakeholder feedback on elements of the goal elicitation tool in a group setting and electronically. Feedback was dynamically incorporated into the tool.

RESULTS

Clinicians (n = 15) and patients (n = 10) provided feedback on the tool prototypes. Clinicians preferred a shorter tool deemphasizing goals outside of their perceived treatment domain or available resources; they highlighted the benefits of the tool to facilitate conversation but raised concerns regarding current constraints of the clinic visit. Patients endorsed the utility of such a tool to support agenda setting and preparing for a visit. Clinicians, patients, and community stakeholders reported the tool was useful but identified barriers to implementation that the tool could itself resolve.

CONCLUSION

A goal elicitation tool for persons with RA and their clinicians was iteratively developed with feedback from multiple stakeholders. The tool can provide a structured way to communicate patient goals within a clinic visit and help overcome reported barriers such as time constraints. Incorporating a structured communication tool to enhance goal communication and foster shared decision making may lead to improved outcomes and higher-quality care in RA.

Back to Basics: Prioritizing Communication as a Key Instrument in Managing Rheumatoid Arthritis

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have come to experience a tremendous increase in therapeutic options with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).¹ After decades of dissatisfying drug therapy results with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) only, the introduction of the first tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in the late 1990s has revolutionized RA treatment.².

The Development of the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative for Improving Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Patient-Centered Communication in Adult Rheumatology

Objective

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are an integral part of treat‐to‐target approaches in managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In clinical practice, however, routine collection, documentation, and discussion of PROs with patients are highly variable. The RISE LC (Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Learning Collaborative) was established to develop and share best practices in PRO collection and use across adult rheumatology practices in the United States

Methods

The goals of the RISE LC were developed through site surveys and in‐person meetings. Participants completed a baseline survey on PRO collection and use in their practices. RISE LC learning sessions focused on improving communication around PROs with patients and enhancing shared decision‐making in treatment plans. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the RISE LC pivoted to adapt PRO tools for telehealth.

Results

At baseline, all responding sites (n = 15) had established workflows for collecting PROs. Most sites used paper forms alone. PRO documentation in electronic health records was variable, with only half of the sites using structured data fields. To standardize and improve the use of PROs, participants iteratively developed a Clinical Disease Activity Index–based RA Disease Activity Communication Tool to solicit treatment goals and improve shared decision‐making across sites. The COVID‐19 pandemic necessitated developing a tool to gauge PROs via telehealth.

Conclusion

The RISE LC is a continuous, structured method for implementing strategies to improve PRO collection and use in rheumatological care, initially adapting from the Learning Collaborative model and extending to include features of a learning network. Future directions include measuring the impact of standardized PRO collection and discussion on shared decision‐making and RA outcomes.

Development of an Implementation Strategy for Patient Decision Aids in Rheumatoid Arthritis Through Application of the Behavior Change Wheel

OBJECTIVE

Decision aids are being developed to support guideline-based rheumatology care in Canada. The study objective was to identify barriers to decision aid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within a behavior change model to inform an implementation strategy.

METHODS

Perspectives from Canadian health care providers (HCPs) and patients living with RA were obtained on an early RA decision aid and on perceived facilitators and barriers to decision aid implementation. Data were collected through semistructured interviews, transcribed, and then analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. The lessons learned were then mapped to the behavior change wheel COM-B system (C = capability, O = opportunity, and M = motivation interact to influence B = behavior) to inform key elements of a national implementation strategy.

RESULTS

Fifteen HCPs and fifteen patients participated. The analysis resulted in five lessons learned: 1) paternalistic decision-making is a dominant practice in early RA, 2) patients need emotional support and access to educational tools to facilitate participation in shared decision-making (SDM), 3) there are many logistical barriers to decision aid implementation in current care models, 4) flexibility is necessary for successful implementation, and 5) HCPs have limited interest in further training opportunities about decision aids. Implementation recommendations included the following: 1) making the decision aids directly available to patients (O) and providing SDM education (C/M), 2) creating an SDM rheumatology curriculum (C/O/M), 3) using "decision coaches" or patient partners as peer support (C/O/M), 4) linking decision aids to "living" rheumatology guidelines (M), and 5) designing trials of patient decision aid/SDM interventions to evaluate patient-important outcomes (O/M).

CONCLUSION

A multifaceted strategy is suggested to improve uptake of decision aids.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

Priorities for High-quality Care in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of Patient, Health Professional, and Policy Maker Perspectives

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the essential elements of high-quality rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care in order to develop a vision statement and a set of strategic objectives for a national RA quality framework.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers using a semistructured interview or focus group guide with healthcare professionals, patients, clinic managers, healthcare leaders, and policy makers to obtain their perspectives on elements essential to RA care. Purposive sampling provided representation of stakeholder types and regions. Recorded data was transcribed verbatim. Two teams of 2 coders independently analyzed the deidentified transcripts using thematic analysis. Strategic objectives and the vision statement were drafted based on the overarching themes from the qualitative analysis and finalized by a working group.

RESULTS

A total of 54 stakeholders from 9 Canadian provinces participated in the project (3 focus groups and 19 interviews). Seven strategic objectives were derived from the qualitative analysis representing the following themes: (1) early access and timeliness of care; (2) evidence-informed, high-quality care for the ongoing management of RA and comorbidities; (3) availability of patient self-management tools and educational materials for shared decision making; (4) multidisciplinary care; (5) patient outcomes; (6) patient experience and satisfaction with care; and (7) equity, the last of which emerged as an overarching theme. The ultimate vision obtained was "ensuring patient-centered, high-quality care for people living with rheumatoid arthritis."

CONCLUSION

The 7 strategic objectives that were identified highlight priorities for RA quality of care to be used in developing the National RA Quality Measurement Framework.

Pop a pill or give myself a shot? Patient perspectives of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug choice for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) decide whether to add oral disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus injectable biologic DMARDs when methotrexate response is inadequate.

METHODS

Using nominal group technique (NGT), RA patients answered the question "What sort of things are important to you when you make a decision between adding pills versus injectable medications to treat rheumatoid arthritis when methotrexate fails to control RA disease activity?" Patients nominated, discussed, and voted for the responses.

RESULTS

Forty-seven RA patients participated: Birmingham (n=6 NG; 21 patients) and New York City (n=4 NG; 26 patients). They were predominantly female (85%), 70% white, with a mean age of 64.5 years and 58% had>10-year RA duration. Present/past DMARDs included methotrexate only in 6%, other traditional DMARDs in 15%, glucocorticoids in combination with traditional DMARDs in 11%, and biologics and/or Jak-kinase inhibitors in 68% of participants. Voted domains in order were: (1) efficacy/effectiveness and the onset/mode of action (78/282 votes); (2) side effects/fear of side effects (84/282 votes); (3) cost including out of pocket, co-payments and patient responsibility (54/282 votes); (4) convenience/frequency of use (27/282 votes); (5) doctor's opinion (20/282 votes); (6) other drugs/comorbidity/other patient's experience/effects on other people (3/282 votes); (7) fear of needles (8/282 votes); and (8) newness of the medication (8/282 votes).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the patient perspective regarding the choice between adding oral versus injectable DMARD once methotrexate failed to control RA disease activity. This knowledge can help in shared decision-making for DMARD choice in RA treatment.

New galaxies in the universe of shared decision-making and rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Implementing shared decision-making (SDM) is a top international priority to improve care for persons living with rheumatoid arthritis. Using SDM tools, such as decision aids improve patients' knowledge and support communication with their clinicians on treatment benefits and risks. Despite calls for SDM in treat-to-target, studies demonstrating effective SDM strategies in rheumatology clinical practice are scarce. Our objective was to identify recent and relevant literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found a burgeoning literature on SDM in rheumatoid arthritis that tackles issues of implementation. Studies have evaluated the SDM process within clinical consultations and found that uptake is suboptimal. Trials of newly developed patient decision aids follow high methodological standards, but large-scale implementation is lacking. Innovative SDM strategies, such as shared goals and preference phenotypes may improve implementation of treat-to-target approach. Research and patient engagement are standardizing measures of SDM for clinical uses.

SUMMARY

Uptake of SDM in rheumatoid arthritis holds promise in wider clinicians' and patients' awareness, availability of decision aids, and broader treat-to-target implementation strategies, such as the learning collaborative. Focused attention is needed on facilitating SDM among diverse populations and those at risk of poorer outcomes and barriers to communication.