Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains.

RESULTS

WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains.

CONCLUSION

Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

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.

Priority strategies to reduce socio-gendered inequities in access to person-centred osteoarthritis care: Delphi survey

OBJECTIVES

Osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence, severity and related comorbid conditions are greater among women compared with men, but women, particularly racialised women, are less likely than men to access OA care. We aimed to prioritise strategies needed to reduce inequities in OA management.

DESIGN

Delphi survey of 28 strategies derived from primary research retained if at least 80% of respondents rated 6 or 7 on a 7-point Likert scale.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

35 women of diverse ethno-cultural groups and 29 healthcare professionals of various specialties from across Canada.

RESULTS

Of the 28 initial and 3 newly suggested strategies, 27 achieved consensus to retain: 20 in round 1 and 7 in round 2. Respondents retained 7 patient-level, 7 clinician-level and 13 system-level strategies. Women and professionals agreed on all but one patient-level strategy (eg, consider patients' cultural needs and economic circumstances) and all clinician-level strategies (eg, inquire about OA management needs and preferences). Some discrepancies emerged for system-level strategies that were more highly rated by women (eg, implement OA-specific clinics). Comments revealed general support among professionals for system-level strategies provided that additional funding or expanded scope of practice was targeted to only formally trained professionals and did not reduce funding for professionals who already managed OA.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified multilevel strategies that could be implemented by healthcare professionals, organisations or systems to mitigate inequities and improve OA care for diverse women.

Multi-level strategies to improve equitable timely person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Women are more likely to develop osteoarthritis (OA), and have greater OA pain and disability compared with men, but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended management, particularly racialized women. OA care of diverse women, and strategies to improve the quality of their OA care is understudied. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies to overcome barriers of access to OA care for diverse women.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews with key informants and used content analysis to identify themes regarding what constitutes person-centred OA care, barriers of OA care, and strategies to support equitable timely access to person-centred OA care.

RESULTS

We interviewed 27 women who varied by ethno-cultural group (e.g. African or Caribbean Black, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Caucasian), age, region of Canada, level of education, location of OA and years with OA; and 31 healthcare professionals who varied by profession (e.g. family physician, nurse practitioner, community pharmacist, physio- and occupational therapists, chiropractors, healthcare executives, policy-makers), career stage, region of Canada and type of organization. Participants within and across groups largely agreed on approaches for person-centred OA care across six domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions, manage uncertainty, share decisions and enable self-management. Participants identified 22 barriers of access and 18 strategies to overcome barriers at the patient- (e.g. educational sessions and materials that accommodate cultural norms offered in different languages and formats for persons affected by OA), healthcare professional- (e.g. medical and continuing education on OA and on providing OA care tailored to intersectional factors) and system- (e.g. public health campaigns to raise awareness of OA, and how to prevent and manage it; self-referral to and public funding for therapy, greater number and ethno-cultural diversity of healthcare professionals, healthcare policies that address the needs of diverse women, dedicated inter-professional OA clinics, and a national strategy to coordinate OA care) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

This research contributes to a gap in knowledge of how to optimize OA care for disadvantaged groups including diverse women. Ongoing efforts are needed to examine how best to implement these strategies, which will require multi-sector collaboration and must engage diverse women.

Identifying strategies that support equitable person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: content analysis of guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Women are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access early diagnosis and management, or experience OA care tailored through person-centred approaches to their needs and preferences, particularly racialized women. One way to support clinicians in optimizing OA care is through clinical guidelines. We aimed to examine the content of OA guidelines for guidance on providing equitable, person-centred care to disadvantaged groups including women.

METHODS

We searched indexed databases and websites for English-language OA-relevant guidelines published in 2000 or later by non-profit organizations. We used manifest content analysis to extract data, and summary statistics and text to describe guideline characteristics, person-centred care (PCC) using a six-domain PCC framework, OA prevalence or barriers by intersectional factors, and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care.

RESULTS

We included 36 OA guidelines published from 2003 to 2021 in 8 regions or countries. Few (39%) development panels included patients. While most (81%) guidelines included at least one PCC domain, guidance was often brief or vague, few addressed exchange information, respond to emotions and manage uncertainty, and none referred to fostering a healing relationship. Few (39%) guidelines acknowledged or described greater prevalence of OA among particular groups; only 3 (8%) noted that socioeconomic status was a barrier to OA care, and only 2 (6%) offered guidance to clinicians on how to improve equitable access to OA care: assess acceptability, availability, accessibility, and affordability of self-management interventions; and employ risk assessment tools to identify patients without means to cope well at home after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that OA guidelines do not support clinicians in caring for diverse persons with OA who face disadvantages due to intersectional factors that influence access to and quality of care. Developers could strengthen OA guidelines by incorporating guidance for PCC and for equity that could be drawn from existing frameworks and tools, and by including diverse persons with OA on guideline development panels. Future research is needed to identify multi-level (patient, clinician, system) strategies that could be implemented via guidelines or in other ways to improve equitable, person-centred OA care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was informed by a team of researchers, collaborators, and thirteen diverse women with lived experience, who contributed to planning, and data collection, analysis and interpretation by reviewing study materials and providing verbal (during meetings) and written (via email) feedback.

Strategies to Improve Equitable Access to Early Osteoarthritis Diagnosis and Management: An updated Review

Though osteoarthritis (OA) affects millions of people worldwide, many fail to access recommended early, person-centered OA care, particularly women who are disproportionately impacted by OA. A prior review identified few strategies to improve equitable access to early diagnosis and management for multiple disadvantaged groups. We aimed to update that review with literature published in 2010 or later on strategies to improve OA care for disadvantaged groups including women. We identified only 11 eligible studies, of which only 2 (18%) focused on women only. Other disadvantaged groups targeted in the largely US-based studies included patients who are Black, Spanish-speaking, rural, and adults aged 60 years and older. All studies evaluated interventions targeted to patients; 4 (36%) assessed video decision aids, and 7 (63.6%) assessed in-person, video, or telephone self-management education. Interventions were often multifaceted (n = 9, 82%), and most studies (n = 8, 73%) achieved positive outcomes in at least some outcomes measured. No studies evaluated clinician- or system-level strategies. Few studies (n = 5, 45%) described how they tailored strategies to disadvantaged groups or how they addressed person-centered care concepts apart from enabling self-management. Future research is needed to develop, implement, evaluate, and scale-up multilevel strategies to enhance equitable, person-centered OA care for disadvantaged groups including women.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: comparative efficacy of immunosuppressants and biologics for reducing hospitalisation and surgery in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have a progressive course leading to hospitalisation and surgery. The ability of existing therapies to alter disease course is not clearly defined.

AIM

To investigate the comparative efficacy of currently available inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) therapies to reduce hospitalisation and surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in MEDLINE/PubMed for randomised controlled trials (RCT) published between January 1980 and May 2016 examining efficacy of biological or immunomodulator therapy in IBD. We performed direct comparisons of pooled proportions of hospitalisation and surgery. Pair-wise comparisons using a random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed to assess comparative efficacy of different treatments.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomised controlled trials (5 CD; 2 UC) comparing three biologics and one immunomodulator with placebo. In CD, anti-TNF biologics significantly reduced hospitalisation [Odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.60] and surgery (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.13-0.42) compared to placebo. No statistically significant reduction was noted with azathioprine or vedolizumab. Azathioprine was inferior to both infliximab and adalimumab in preventing CD-related hospitalisation (>97.5% probability). Anti-TNF biologics significantly reduced hospitalisation (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.80) and surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.97) in UC. There were no statistically significant differences in the pair-wise comparisons between active treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In CD and UC, anti-TNF biologics are efficacious in reducing the odds of hospitalisation by half and surgery by 33-77%. Azathioprine and vedolizumab were not associated with a similar improvement, but robust conclusions may be limited due to paucity of RCTs.