Shared decision making in routine clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an assessment of audio-recorded consultations

Optimizing withdrawal strategies for anti-TNF-α therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease that significantly impacts patients' quality of life. While treatment options have expanded over the years, including the introduction of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) inhibitors (TNFi), optimizing withdrawal strategies for these agents remains a challenge.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the current evidence on TNFi withdrawal strategies in RA, focusing on factors influencing withdrawal decisions such as disease activity monitoring, treatment response, patient characteristics, and biomarkers. A comprehensive literature search was conducted, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and expert guidelines. The pathophysiology of RA, current pharmacological agents, and the treat-to-target strategy are discussed to provide a holistic understanding of RA management.

EXPERT OPINION

Withdrawal strategies could be suitable for certain patients, keeping in mind that several factors influence withdrawal decisions, including treatment response, disease activity and monitoring, and patient characteristics. The decision to withdraw TNFi must balance the benefits against the potential risks of disease flare and long-term treatment-related adverse effects. Combining DMARDs and TNFi early improves outcomes, supporting tapering strategies for cost-effectiveness and flare prevention. Future directions, including precision medicine approaches, patient-centered care models, and health economics analyses, are proposed to further optimize RA management and improve patient outcomes.

Viewpoint: Nurses educating patients about drugs

Educating patients about the drugs they take is essential for them to take them safely and effectively. This education is now commonly given by nurses as part of the huge expansion in the nurse specialist role. However, training for this role has not kept pace with practice. Nurses have expressed variable confidence in this role and expressed a wish for more formal training. Current practice often puts the information rather than the patient at the centre of the consultation with the nurse dominating the conversation. Cues to address the patient agenda are commonly missed. An animated patient who interrupts is probably not having their educational needs met. Education of the professionals around how to perform this task in an optimal way is necessary and should result in better efficacy and safety of the drugs. This could be achieved by incorporating features of Shared Decision Making and the Calgary-Cambridge consultation techniques into training and the consultation. Personalization by attention to patient preferences, language and health literacy is essential.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table.

RESULTS

We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table.

CONCLUSION

We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Treatment patterns of individualized real-life tapering approaches based on shared decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence on patient-individual tapering patterns of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

Data obtained through a controlled prospective cohort study in Germany conducted from July 2018 to March 2021 were analyzed. Participants consist of RA patients in sustained remission who were eligible for DMARD tapering at enrolment. Data from RA patients who experienced tapering of DMARDs at least once during the observational period (n = 200) were used. Descriptive analyses of medical outcomes at baseline and at time of first tapering, time to first tapering, tapering patterns by substance group, and tapering intensity were documented.

RESULTS

We did not observe meaningful differences in either disease activity or quality of life measures between substance groups at enrolment, time of first tapering, and at 6 or 12 months after tapering. Median time until first tapering varied between substance groups (csDMARDs: 108 days; bDMARDs: 189 days; combination: 119 days). Most patients received one iteration of tapering only (147/200 patients, 73.5%). Dose reduction was applied for patients treated with csDMARDs (79/86 patients, 91.8%), spacing of interval was the most frequent strategy for patients treated with bDMARDs only (43/48 patients, 89.5%). Necessity for increased DMARD dosage was observed in only 10% of patients (20/200). Tapering intensity by substance was overall heterogenous, indicating high individualization.

CONCLUSION

We identify highly heterogeneous tapering patterns between substance groups and within substances. Identification and recognition of patient-individual approaches of tapering will help to further improve the management of RA for both patients and rheumatologists.

Digitally-supported patient-centered asynchronous outpatient follow-up in rheumatoid arthritis - an explorative qualitative study

Objective

A steadily increasing demand and decreasing number of rheumatologists push current rheumatology care to its limits. Long travel times and poor accessibility of rheumatologists present particular challenges for patients. Need-adapted, digitally supported, patient-centered and flexible models of care could contribute to maintaining high-quality patient care. This qualitative study was embedded in a randomized controlled trial (TELERA) investigating a new model of care consisting of the use of a medical app for ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes), a self-administered CRP (C-reactive protein) test, and joint self-examination in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The qualitative study aimed to explore experiences of RA patients and rheumatology staff regarding (1) current care and (2) the new care model.

Methods

The study included qualitative interviews with RA patients (n = 15), a focus group with patient representatives (n = 1), rheumatology nurses (n = 2), ambulatory rheumatologists (n = 2) and hospital-based rheumatologists (n = 3). Data was analyzed by qualitative content analysis.

Results

Participants described current follow-up care as burdensome. Patients in remission have to travel long distances. Despite pre-scheduled visits physicians lack questionnaire results and laboratory results to make informed shared decisions during face-to-face visits. Patients reported that using all study components (medical app for ePRO, self-performed CRP test and joint self-examination) was easy and helped them to better assess their disease condition. Parts of the validated questionnaire used in the trial (routine assessment of patient index data 3; RAPID3) seemed outdated or not clear enough for many patients. Patients wanted to be automatically contacted in case of abnormalities or at least have an app feature to request a call-back or chat. Financial and psychological barriers were identified among rheumatologists preventing them to stop automatically scheduling new appointments for patients in remission. Rheumatology nurses pointed to the potential lack of personal contact, which may limit the holistic care of RA-patients.

Conclusion

The new care model enables more patient autonomy, allowing patients more control and flexibility at the same time. All components were well accepted and easy to carry out for patients. To ensure success, the model needs to be more responsive and allow seamless integration of education material.

Trial registration

The study was prospectively registered on 2021/04/09 at the German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRKS00024928).

Implementation of a novel shared decision-making intervention in women with chronic hypertension in pregnancy: multiple-site multiple-method investigation

BACKGROUND

Many women with chronic hypertension are conflicted about antihypertensive medication during pregnancy and some are non-adherent to prescribed medication.

OBJECTIVES

Codesign, implement and evaluate a novel shared decision-making (SDM) intervention for use with pregnant women with chronic hypertension.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Pregnant women with chronic hypertension and their principal healthcare professionals (obstetricians, midwives, and physicians), at three National Health Service hospital trusts with different models of care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The RE-AIM framework guided the evaluation. Primary: Decisional conflict scale, medication intention survey and women's acceptability. Secondary: Healthcare professionals' acceptability and the barriers and facilitators to SDM implementation with pregnant women with chronic hypertension.

RESULTS

Fifty women participated. Nearly half (46 %; n = 23) of women were from Black and Asian backgrounds. The SDM intervention was effective at reducing decisional conflict (mean reduction from baseline 42 %, 95 % CI 35-49, p ≤ 0.05). In 36 women (72 %), the reduction was of clinical importance. 24 women (48 %) were uncertain about or planned not to take antihypertensives prior to the SDM intervention, compared to two women (4 %) after the intervention. The intervention was acceptable to women and healthcare professionals. 10 of 14 healthcare professionals felt that the in-consultation aid facilitated SDM in current antenatal contexts, a similar proportion (10/14) felt the length of consultations hindered SDM.

CONCLUSION

A novel codesigned SDM intervention reduced decisional conflict and increased women's intention to take antihypertensive agents during pregnancy. This intervention could be adopted into practice for women making pregnancy decisions where there is uncertainty around the medication management option.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Factors Associated With the Quality of the Patient-Doctor Relationship: A Cross-Sectional Study of Ambulatory Mexican Patients With Rheumatic Diseases

BACKGROUND

The patient-doctor relationship (PDR) is a complex phenomenon with strong cultural determinants, which impacts health-related outcomes and, accordingly, does have ethical implications. The study objective was to describe the PDR from medical encounters between 600 Mexican outpatients with rheumatic diseases and their attending rheumatologists, and to identify factors associated with a good PDR.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was performed. Patients completed the PDRQ-9 (Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire, 9 items), the HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index), the Short-Form 36 items (SF-36), a pain-visual analog scale, and the Ideal Patient Autonomy Scale. Relevant sociodemographic, disease-related, and treatment-related variables were obtained. Patients assigned a PDRQ-9 score to each patient-doctor encounter. Regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with a good PDR, which was defined based on a cutoff point established using the borderline performance method.

RESULTS

Patients were primarily middle-aged female subjects (86%), with substantial disease duration (median, 11.1 years), without disability (HAQ-DI within reference range, 55.3%), and with deteriorated quality of life (SF-36 out of reference range, 73.7%-78.6%). Among them, 36.5% had systemic lupus erythematosus and 31.8% had rheumatoid arthritis. There were 422 patients (70.3%) with a good PDR and 523 medical encounters (87.2%) involved certified rheumatologists.Patient paternalistic ideal of autonomy (odds ratio [OR], 3.029; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.793-5.113), SF-36 score (OR, 1.014; 95% CI, 1.003-1.025), female sex (OR, 0.460; 95% CI, 0.233-0.010), and being certified rheumatologist (OR, 1.526; 95% CI, 1.059-2.200) were associated with a good PDR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-related factors and the degree of experience of the attending physician impact the quality of the PDR, in Mexican outpatients with rheumatic diseases.

Healthcare Professionals' Compliance with the Standard Management Guidelines towards the Use of Biological Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is complicated, with numerous aspects influencing decision-making, including disease severity, comorbidities, and patient preferences. The present study aimed to evaluate healthcare professionals' (HCPs) knowledge of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and their compliance with the standard management guidelines for assuring optimal RA therapy. The cross-sectional, survey-based study was performed in various healthcare and academic settings in Karachi, Pakistan to probe HCPs' knowledge of bDMARDs and their compliance with the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of RA patients. Overall, n = 413 questionnaires were included in our study (response rate: 82.6%). The physicians were further well-informed about the indications (n = 276, 91.3%, p = 0.001) and monitoring requirements (n = 258, 85.4%, p = 0.004). The pharmacists were more knowledgeable about the drug targets (n = 96, 86.4%, p = 0.029) and their mechanisms of action (n = 80, 72.0%, p = 0.013). Male respondents as compared with females (41.3% vs. 35.6%, p = 0.04), and physicians as compared with pharmacists (40.7% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.012), were more confident in using bDMARDs than conventional treatment in RA patients. Our findings show that the respondents were familiar with the attributes of bDMARDs and the standard management guidelines for RA care. Our results may be relevant in creating new methods, guidelines, and treatments to enhance RA treatment adherence, satisfaction, and health outcomes.

"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.

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter-such as empathy and trust-may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

'More than just chitchat': a qualitative study concerning the need and potential format of a peer mentor programme for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Patients recently diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have specific educational and supportive needs. These could partly be addressed with mentoring by other patients living with RA. This qualitative study explores stakeholder perceptions towards peer mentoring in early RA care.

Methods

Two focus groups with patients with early RA (n=10), one with patient organisation representatives (n=5), one with rheumatologists (n=8) and one with rheumatology nurses (n=5) were held. Two patient research partners supported analysis and interpretation.

Results

Four overarching themes were found: added value, experience with peer mentoring, concerns and need in daily care. Patients and patient organisation representatives confirmed the potential of peer mentoring especially regarding sensitive topics not easily discussed with professionals. Patients felt it could provide additional understanding and recognition. Nurses and rheumatologists were less convinced of the added value of peer mentoring because patients never mentioned it and they were concerned about the loss of control over correct information provision. The need for peer mentoring was perceived as person and disease phase-dependent and should therefore be optional, rather than a care standard. The requirements for a peer mentorship programme remained challenging to define for stakeholders. However, all expressed the need for supervision by healthcare professionals and that peer mentors should be carefully selected, educated and matched to newly diagnosed patients.

Conclusion

Peer mentoring and its implementation remain vague concepts, especially for healthcare providers. However, patients are interested in mentoring by peers, and the current results may support in effectively implementing such programmes early in the disease.

Importance of Shared Treatment Goal Discussions in Rheumatoid Arthritis-A Cross-Sectional Survey: Patients Report Providers Seldom Discuss Treatment Goals and Outcomes Improve When Goals Are Discussed

Objective

Treat‐to‐target (T2T) and shared decision‐making are valued features of current guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Although T2T has demonstrated value for improving RA outcomes, implementation remains inconsistent and lacks standardization and procedures for including patient input. We sought to better understand the impact of shared decisions on T2T and how treatment goal discussions between patients and providers impact RA treatment improvement and satisfaction.

Methods

An anonymous, web‐based questionnaire was presented to United States residents aged 18 years or older with a self‐reported diagnosis of RA by a medical professional with 28 questions regarding socio‐demographics, RA disease activity (DA), diagnosis, treatments, outcomes, and goals. Analyses included descriptive statistics with χ² and rank sum tests for comparisons.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by 907 people (mean age of 58 years; mean 11 years since diagnosis; 90% female). The majority (571; 63%) did not discuss RA treatment goals with providers. Patients engaging in treatment goal discussions with their providers were three times more likely to be satisfied with their treatment plans. Patients discussing treatment goals with their providers were more likely to have improved DA levels and 68% more likely to reach remission.

Conclusion

A majority of patients with RA report having no treatment goal discussion with their providers; however, these discussions are associated with greater DA improvement and treatment satisfaction. Further research should seek understanding of how shared treatment goal discussions relate to successful RA management and explore the development of practical tools to implement them in regular clinic practice as part of a T2T regimen.

Decision making for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with a hemoglobinopathy-Shared or not?

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) offers an established curative option for sickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassemia patients but is associated with significant risks. Decision making is a complex process and shared decision making (SDM) could be a fitting approach in case of such preference-sensitive decisions. This study investigated what level of SDM is used in conversations with hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers considering HSCT as a curative treatment option.

METHODS

Longitudinal, descriptive study using the Observing-Patient-Involvement-in-Decision-Making scale (OPTION⁵ ) scale to determine the level of SDM in conversations with 26 hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers.

RESULTS

The total mean OPTION⁵ score was 43%, which is a moderate SDM approach. There was no difference between conversations with thalassemia patients and SCD patients. Conversations needing an interpreter scored worse than nontranslated conversations. The best scoring OPTION⁵ item was item 3: "informing about the various treatment options" (mean score 2.3 on scale 0-4). For OPTION⁵ item 4: "eliciting patients' preferences" a more skilled effort was measured for SCD patients compared to thalassemia patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean OPTION⁵ score of "moderate" was achieved mainly by giving information on available options, which is primarily a one-way communication. The SDM process can be improved by actively inviting patients to deliberate about options and including their elicited preferences in decision making.

Development and validation of the Methotrexate Experience Questionnaire, a new methotrexate oral treatment adherence tool in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Despite the development of new biologic therapies, methotrexate (MTX) remains the preferred initial disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Adherence to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs is suspected to be highly variable potentially leading to reduced treatment effectiveness. This work aimed to develop and validate the Methotrexate Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), a tool to identify and characterize non-adherence to oral MTX.

Methods

MEQ development included a literature review and qualitative interviews with RA patients and physicians in the United States. A retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from Optimum Patient Care Research Database, a large primary care database of electronic medical records in the United Kingdom, was conducted to finalize the MEQ and evaluate its psychometric properties.

Results

Three hundred seven e-consented subjects (66% women, mean age of 65 years) completed the MEQ remotely, and were included in this analysis. Item-convergent and divergent validity were generally supportive of the construct validity of the MEQ and Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87 supported its reliability. The MEQ Total score presented statistically significant correlations of small to medium size with all selected concurrent scales, as expected; the highest correlation was obtained between the general acceptance score of ACCEPT and the MEQ Total score (0.55, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated as a logical pattern of higher MEQ scores was obtained for patients considered adherent with both the 6- and 12-month Proportion of Days Covered (mean MEQ total score 82.7 for 12-month PDC ≥ 80% against 76.3 for 12-month PDC < 80%, p< 0.0001). Additionally, a pattern of lower MEQ scores was obtained for patients with more severe disease assessed with Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3.

Conclusion

The 24-item MEQ is a reliable and valid instrument to assess the adherence of RA patients taking MTX, potentially improving over historical refill rate metrics by providing insights into the individual reasons for lack of adherence. This information should facilitate clinician-patient discussions and help inform treatment decisions.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-021-00339-5.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort.

METHODS

We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Barriers to shared decision-making with women of reproductive age affected by a chronic inflammatory disease: a mixed-methods needs assessment of dermatologists and rheumatologists

OBJECTIVES

The main study objective was to identify challenges and barriers experienced by dermatologists and rheumatologists when engaging women of reproductive age in shared decision-making (SDM) related to treatment and management of chronic inflammatory disease (CID) before, during and after pregnancy.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods study was conducted, employing (1) semistructured interviews, (2) an online survey and (3) triangulation of findings.

PARTICIPANTS

524 dermatologists and rheumatologists entered the study; 495 completed it; 388 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Participants were included if actively practising in Germany (GER), the UK or the USA; had a minimum 5% caseload of female patients of reproductive age with either axial spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis or rheumatoid arthritis; and had experience prescribing biologics.

RESULTS

48 interviews and 340 surveys were analysed. Interviews underscored dermatologists and rheumatologists' suboptimal integration of SDM in clinical practice. In the survey, 90% (n=305) did not know about SDM models. A perceived lack of competency counselling patients on pregnancy and family planning was also identified during interviews. Among the survey sample, 44% (n=150) of specialists agreed they preferred leaving pregnancy-related discussions to obstetricians and/or gynaecologists and 57% (n=189) reported having suboptimal skills discussing contraceptive methods with patients. Another finding that emerged from interviews was the perception that all biologics are strictly contraindicated during pregnancy. Suboptimal knowledge was noted among 57% (n=95) of dermatologists and 48% (n=83) of rheumatologists surveyed in that regard, with a statistically significant difference by country among dermatologists (GER: 42% vs UK: 71% vs USA: 57%, p=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified low levels of knowledge, skill and confidence, as well as attitudinal issues, that explain why SDM is not fully integrated in dermatology and rheumatology clinical practice. Blended-learning interventions are recommended to assist CID specialists in developing effective communication and patient engagement competencies.

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.

Experiences and perceptions of patients with psoriatic arthritis participating in a trial of faecal microbiota transplantation: a nested qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patients' first-hand experiences of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) performed in a rheumatological care setting have yet to be elucidated. The objectives were to explore participants' perceptions of being part of an FMT trial thereby identifying potential trial participation effects and enlightening the patient perspective on the outlook for future FMT trials in rheumatic diseases.

DESIGN

In a qualitative study nested within a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) testing FMT as a potential new antirheumatic treatment, semistructured telephone interviews were conducted following the trial participants' final 26-week visit. Qualitative researchers, who did not take part in the main trial, performed the interviews and the primary analysis. The experiences explored related to the conduct of the RCT and changes in the participants' everyday life. The analysis was carried out using a thematic approach.

SETTING

A Danish rheumatology university outpatient clinic with nationwide inclusion.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 10 patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were unaware of their treatment allocation (FMT/sham transplantation) and completed the final 26-week trial visit.

RESULTS

Participation in the RCT influenced the patients' understanding of PsA and induced positive changes in their everyday life. Renewed hopes for the future in addition to a feeling of enhanced care contributed to significant trial participation effects. FMT was deemed a tolerable and safe treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies between the clinical and the research setting should be considered when discussing the clinical relevance of the results of the RCT. Overall, patients with PsA who have participated in an RCT testing FMT find the treatment acceptable and safe encouraging more research into the field of microbiota-targeted interventions in rheumatic diseases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03058900; Pre-results.

A patient-centered knowledge translation tool for treat-to-target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: Patient and rheumatologist perspectives

AIM

Implementation of treat-to-target (T2T) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presents many challenges and an evidence-practice gap has emerged. This study assessed clinician and patient barriers to the implementation of an RA-T2T strategy and developed a knowledge translation (KT) tool for use in "real-life" clinical settings.

METHODS

Surveys of patients and rheumatologists measured agreement with RA-T2T recommendations and use in daily practice. Patient knowledge and perceptions were assessed as was clinician willingness to alter practice and barriers to RA-T2T using visual analog scales. An electronic KT-tool was developed and a two-phase usability trial undertaken to assess use in clinical interactions.

RESULTS

Ninety-one percent of patients had no prior knowledge of RA-T2T but agreed with the recommendations showing mean level agreement scores (8.39-9.54, SD 2.37-1.54). Ninety percent were willing to try RA-T2T, 49% felt their treatment could be improved and 28% wanted more involvement in treatment decisions. Rheumatologists agreed with RA-T2T recommendations (7.30-9.27, SD 2.59-0.91). Barriers to implementation identified by rheumatologists included time, appointment availability and perceived patient reluctance to escalate medications. Usability experiences with the KT-tool were tracked and clinicians reported it was easy to use (100%), resulted in a discussion of RA-T2T (73%) and a target being set for 63% of consults. Patients reported they read (92%) and understood (87%) the information in the KT-tool, and that a target was set in 62% of interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-T2T uptake in clinical practice may be improved through understanding local clinician and patient barriers and an implementation strategy utilizing a patient-driven KT-tool.

TREAT Early Arthralgia to Reverse or Limit Impending Exacerbation to Rheumatoid arthritis (TREAT EARLIER): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial protocol

BACKGROUND

We present a study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that investigates the hypothesis if intervention in the symptomatic phase preceding clinical arthritis (clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA)) is effective in preventing progression from subclinical inflammation to clinically apparent persistent arthritis. Currently, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be recognized and diagnosed when arthritis (joint swelling) has become detectable at physical examination. Importantly, at this time, the immune processes have already matured, chronicity is established, and patients require long-standing treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The TREAT EARLIER trial studies the hypothesis that intervention in the symptomatic phase preceding clinical arthritis is more often successful in permanent disease modification because of less matured underlying disease processes.

METHODS

A two-level definition to identify patients that are prone to develop RA is used. First, patients should have CSA and recent-onset arthralgia (< 1 year) that is suspect to progress to RA according to the expertise of the treating rheumatologist. Second, patients need to have subclinical inflammation of the hand or foot joints at 1.5 T MRI. The trial aims to recruit 230 participants from secondary care hospital settings across the south-west region of The Netherlands. Intervention will be randomly assigned and includes a single-dose of intramuscular 120 mg methylprednisolon followed by methotrexate (increasing dose to 25 mg/week orally) or placebo (both; injection and tablets) over the course of 1 year. Thereafter, participants are followed for another year. The primary endpoint is the development of clinically detectable arthritis, either fulfilling the 2010 criteria for RA or unclassified clinical arthritis of ≥ 2 joints, which persists for at least 2 weeks. DMARD-free status is a co-primary endpoint. The patient-reported outcomes functioning, along with workability and symptoms, are key secondary endpoints. Participants, caregivers (including those assessing the endpoints), and scientific staff are all blinded to the group assignment.

DISCUSSION

This proof-of-concept study is the logical consequence of pre-work on the identification of patients with CSA with MRI-detected subclinical joint inflammation. It will test the hypothesis whether intervention in patients in this early phase with the cornerstone treatment of classified RA (methotrexate) hampers the development of persistent RA and reduce the disease burden of RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register NL4599 (NTR4853). Registered on 20 October 2014.

Acceptance, Usage, and Barriers of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Among German Rheumatologists: Survey Study

Background

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified.

Methods

Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey.

Results

A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs.

Conclusions

The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.

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.

Exploring healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

OBJECTIVES

To explore physicians' and nurses' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatology, to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM, and to examine whether physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM differ.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, exploratory, online survey was used. Besides demographic characteristics, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of SDM in rheumatology were assessed. Barriers and facilitators to SDM were identified from healthcare professionals' answers. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were examined with a t-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between April and June 2019, 77 physicians and 70 nurses completed the survey. Although most healthcare professionals lacked a full conceptual understanding of SDM, almost all physicians (92%) and all nurses had a (very) positive attitude toward SDM, which was most frequently motivated by the belief that SDM improves patients' treatment adherence. The majority (>50%) of healthcare professionals experienced problems with the application of SDM in clinical practice, mostly related to time constraints. Other important barriers were the incompatibility of SDM with clinical practice guidelines and beliefs that patients do not prefer to be involved in decision making or are not able to take an active role. Modest differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were found.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for education and training that equips and empowers healthcare professionals to apply SDM. Furthermore, the commitment of time, resources and financial support for national, regional and organisational initiatives is needed to make SDM in rheumatology a practical reality.