Qualitative Evaluation of Evidence-Based Online Decision Aid and Resources for Osteoarthritis Management: Understanding Patient Perspectives

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

Cross-perspectives on care pathways for painful osteoarthritis: A qualitative analysis in patients and healthcare professionals

PURPOSE

To analyse and compare patients' and healthcare professionals' (HPs) perspectives concerning patient care pathways for painful osteoarthritis (OA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a qualitative study of two focus groups corresponding to eight patients with painful OA and eight HPs involved in OA management.

RESULTS

Six key themes emerged from the interviews: (1) representations of OA, (2) OA pain, (3) quality of life, (4) care pathways, (5) actors involved in the care pathway, and (6) treatments. Both groups considered general practitioners, pharmacists and physiotherapists to be first-line HPs, and no well-defined OA specialist was identified. Patients and HPs reported similar difficulties concerning the adaptation of management to individual cases, late diagnosis and treatment, whereas only patients mentioned financial issues. Communication difficulties were identified as a major problem both between patients and HPs, and between HPs. Patients reported a lack of knowledge concerning pain and OA. The coordination between the various HPs is required, with education on both pain and OA. Several possible solutions were put forward by both patients and HPs.

CONCLUSION

The care pathways of patients with painful OA are complex, with an unclear definition of the roles of the various HPs and suboptimal coordination. The role of HPs should be defined and collaboration between HPs developed.

The development and utility of a multicriteria patient decision aid for people contemplating treatment for osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

There are a range of treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee and hip, each with a unique profile of risks and benefits. Patient decision aids can help incorporate patient preferences in treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop and test the utility of a patient decision aid for OA that was developed using a multicriteria decision analytic framework.

METHODS

People contemplating treatment for OA who had accessed the website myjointpain.org.au were invited to participate in the study by using the online patient decision aid. Two forms of the patient decision aid were created: A shorter form and a longer form, which allowed greater customization that was offered to respondents after they had completed the shorter form. Respondents also completed questions asking about their experience using the patient decision aid.

RESULTS

A total of 625 self-selected respondents completed the short-form and 180 completed the long-form. Across both forms, serious side effects, pain and function were rated as the most important treatment outcomes. Most respondents (64%) who completed the longer form reported that using the tool was a positive experience, 38% reported that using the tool had changed their mind and 48% said that using the tool would improve the quality of their decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings suggest that this patient decision aid may be of use to a substantial number of people in facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Service users of myjointpain.org.au were involved through their participation in the study, and their feedback will guide the development of future iterations of the tool.

Osteoarthritis management: Does the pharmacist play a role in bridging the gap between what patients actually know and what they ought to know? Insights from a national online survey

BACKGROUND

Guidelines encourage engagement in self-care activities for osteoarthritis (OA), but there are gaps in consumers' knowledge about suitable choices for self-care. Community pharmacists are in an ideal position to contribute to OA management through screening and supporting evidence-based pain management choices. Prior research established an association between health literacy and advice-seeking and appropriateness of analgesics choices (both lower in participants with limited health literacy) amongst people living with OA. This article explores the implications of these data for pharmacists in OA management.

METHODS

A national online survey was conducted amongst 628 adults aged 45-74 years, currently residing in Australia, with self-reported symptoms of OA. All data were collected using a customized online questionnaire, which was completed only once. 'Self-reported symptoms of OA' was based on six validated screening questions to identify people with OA without a formal clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

Respondents matched the typical profile of people diagnosed with OA; more than half were female (56%), knees (59%) and hips (31%) were the primary affected joints and 74% were either overweight or obese. Self-identification of OA was limited (41%). Overall, 38% self-managed their pain, and limited health literacy was associated with less advice-seeking. Efficacy and ease of use were the main reasons cited for prompting use across all classes of nonprescription analgesic, with less than 20% reporting recommendation from a pharmacist. Participants were managing their pain with an average of 1.74 (95% confidence interval: 1.60-1.88) analgesics, but 73% reported inadequate pain relief and 54% had disrupted sleep.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight three key themes: lack of self-identification of OA, suboptimal pain relief and limited use of the community pharmacist as a source of management advice. Equipping community pharmacists with tools to identify OA could bridge this gap. More research is needed to determine if it will improve consumers' ability to appropriately manage OA pain.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Consumers living with OA contributed to the study outcomes, reviewed the survey questionnaire for face validity and advised on plain language terminology.

How do people with knee pain from osteoarthritis respond to a brief video delivering empowering education about the condition and its management?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate responses by people with knee osteoarthritis to a brief educational video about their condition that aimed to empower and motivate effective self-management. The video content addressed psychosocial contributors to pain and barriers to behaviour change.

METHODS

A mixed methods design, including a survey and semi-structured interviews, was used to collect data from 118 people (46-83 years, 78% female) with knee osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

Quantitative data analysis showed the video was rated positively on 0-6 scales for enjoyability (mean 5.0), helpfulness (4.9), relevance (5.0) and believability (5.4). The majority would recommend the video (89%), learned new information (78%) and/or reported intentions to change behaviour (78%). A minority disliked aspects of the video (23%). The thematic analyses identified three main themes: Reactions to the video, including emotions; Learning from the video, including new knowledge and empowerment, but also unmet information needs or disagreement; and Intentions, including behaviour changes, cognitive changes and help seeking.

CONCLUSION

Education about knee osteoarthritis with a focus on empowerment is well received by people with the condition, although some discordant views emerged.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The educational video about knee osteoarthritis can be recommended to promote effective self-management and counteract potential drawbacks associated with biomedical-based education.

Novel Stepped Care Approach to Provide Education and Exercise Therapy for Patellofemoral Pain: Feasibility Study

Background

Patellofemoral pain (PFP) impairs joint- and health-related quality of life and may be associated with knee osteoarthritis. We developed a novel, 2-phase, stepped-care approach for PFP, combining (1) self-directed web-based education and exercise therapy with (2) physiotherapist-supported education and exercise therapy. Physiotherapy sessions can be provided using 2 different modalities: face-to-face and telerehabilitation.

Objective

This study aims to (1) determine the feasibility of our stepped-care approach, (2) explore patient-reported outcomes following self-directed web-based education and exercise therapy in people with PFP (phase 1), and (3) estimate the differences in treatment effects between face-to-face and telerehabilitation to support further education and exercise therapy (phase 2) in those who had not completely recovered following self-directed care.

Methods

Phase 1 involved 6 weeks of self-directed web-based education and exercise therapy. Phase 2 involved random allocation to a further 12 weeks of physiotherapist-led (up to 8 sessions) education and exercise therapy delivered face-to-face or via telerehabilitation to participants who did not rate themselves as completely recovered following phase 1. Feasibility indicators of process, adherence, and participant retention were collected as primary outcomes alongside patient-reported outcomes on Global Rating of Change and knee pain, disability, knee-related quality of life, pain catastrophism, kinesiophobia, and knee self-efficacy. All participants were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 18 weeks.

Results

A total of 71 participants were screened to identify 35 participants with PFP to enter the study. Overall, 100% (35/35) and 88% (31/35) of the participants were followed up with at 6 and 18 weeks, respectively. In phase 1 of the study, participants accessed the My Knee Cap website for an average of 6 (7.5) days and performed the exercises for an average of 2.5 (3.6) times per week. A total of 20% (7/35) of the participants reported that they had completely recovered at 6 weeks. Furthermore, 93% (26/28) of the participants who were followed up and had not completely recovered at 6 weeks agreed to be enrolled in phase 2. No statistically significant differences were found between the face-to-face and telerehabilitation groups for any outcome. The novel stepped-care approach was associated with marked improvement or complete recovery in 40% (14/35) of the participants following phase 1 and 71% (25/35) of the participants following phase 2.

Conclusions

Self-directed web-based education and exercise therapy for people with PFP is feasible, as noted by the high rate of participant retention and home exercise adherence achieved in this study. Furthermore, 20% (7/35) of people reported complete recovery at 6 weeks. Both face-to-face and telerehabilitation physiotherapy should be considered for those continuing to seek care, as there is no difference in outcomes between these delivery modes. Determining the efficacy of the stepped-care model may help guide more efficient health care for PFP.

MyBackPain-evaluation of an innovative consumer-focused website for low back pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Despite the prevalence of low back pain (LBP) worldwide, many people with the condition do not receive evidence-based care or achieve the best possible outcomes. There is a gap in the dissemination of evidence-based information across the globe. The advent of the internet has changed the way people obtain health information. As such, trustworthy, tailored and validated LBP resources may help bridge the gap. This study aims to measure the effectiveness of a new website (MyBackPain) in improving spinal health literacy, treatment preferences and clinical outcomes for people with LBP, in comparison with other online resources.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This online, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial will comprise 440 people with non-specific LBP of any duration. In addition to access to publicly available online information (control group), the intervention group will be given access to the MyBackPain.org.au website. Participants and research staff, including the biostatistician, will be blinded to treatment allocation. Data will be collected at baseline, 1, 3 (primary end-point), 6 and 12 months via online surveys and questionnaires. The primary outcome is spinal health literacy. Secondary outcomes include quality of treatment preferences (stated and observed) and LBP clinical outcomes (pain, disability and quality of life). Analyses will be by intention-to-treat and include outcome data on all randomised participants. Descriptive statistics will be presented for demographic and clinical characteristics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and has ethical approval from the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (2017000995). Trial outcomes will be shared via national and international conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12617001292369; Pre-results.