POS1524-HPR HPR 2020 GRANT. AWARENESS OF NON-PHARMACOLOGICAL AND NON-SURGICAL TREATMENTS FOR OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SURVEY OF PEOPLE WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS IN SWEDEN

Background

International clinical practice guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis (OA)1 2 recommend exercise, education and diet as first-line interventions since they are safe, low cost and reported to be effective, in reducing OA pain and disability, regardless of the severity of the disease. However, these treatments require high levels of adherence, which may be difficult to achieve. One of the possible reasons that can jeopardise patients’ adherence with first-line interventions for OA is the lack of awareness of the role that these treatments play in their care.

Objectives

To investigate the level of awareness of non-pharmacological and non-surgical treatments for hip and knee OA in a cohort of people with this disease in Sweden.

Methods

A cross-sectional, online survey-based study was conducted in Sweden. People with diagnosed knee or hip OA were recruited through social media outlets and patients’ associations. The survey was divided into two sections: (i) participants’ demographic and clinical characteristics (e.g. gender, age, income, work, height, weight, level of physical activity, previous surgeries, pain, level of disability) and (ii) a set of items with 22 treatments (e.g., weight advice, physical activity, drugs, supplements etc) where participants were asked to report whether each treatment was ‘recommended’, ‘optional’, ‘not recommended’, or ‘I don’t know’ - for the management of knee or hip OA. In the analyses, we grouped the 22 proposed treatments into ‘recommended’, ‘optional’, and ‘not recommended’ according to existing international guidelines.1 2 Based on the responses, participants were categorised as “aware” if they correctly identified all the treatments, “partially aware” if they correctly identified at least one treatment, and “not aware” if they did not correctly identify any of the treatments.

Results

Participants comprised 123 people with OA of the knee, hip or both (N=65, 22%; N=27, 22% and N= 33, 26% respectively). Their mean (SD) age was 60.3 (8.8) and 108 (88%) were women. Forty-eight (39%) were “aware” of the recommended treatments, 63 (50%) “partially aware” and 14 (11%) were “not aware”. Regarding the optional treatments, 2 (2%) were “aware”, 103 (82%) “partially aware” and 20 (16%) were “not aware”. For the treatments that were not-recommended, none was “aware”, while 69 (55%) and 56 (45%) were considered “partially aware” and “not aware”, respectively. Figure 1 summarises the responses of the participants to each treatment item.

Figure 1.

Participants’ responses to each treatment

Conclusion

Survey participants seem to be more aware of the recommended treatments than the optional and not-recommended ones. A more holistic approach in the education of people with OA should be pursued, providing them with a complete overview of the possible OA treatments. This would help patients identify the most appropriate treatment option for their OA and facilitate a shared decision-making with their health professionals.

References

[1]Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2019;27:1578–89.

[2]Fernandes L, Hagen KB, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1125–35.

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the project funded by EULAR (European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology) “HPR: The EULAR health professionals research grant 2020.”

Disclosure of Interests

None declared

POS0003 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A DISEASE SPECIFIC PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME FOR GIANT CELL ARTERITIS

Background

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is caused by inflammation of the blood vessels of the head and neck; patients can present with cranial, ocular or large vessel vasculitis involvement. Treatment is with glucocorticoids, steroid sparing agents and biologics to control inflammation and protect sight.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to produce a validated disease specific PROM for patients with GCA, to capture the impact of GCA and its treatment on health-related quality of life.

Methods

Patients with clinician- confirmed GCA from the UK, either diagnosed in the last three years or with a flare in the last year, were included in the survey. A longlist of 40 candidate questionnaire items, each with a 5-point Likert scale, had previously been developed, based on a qualitative study with patients from the UK and Australia [1]. In this cross-sectional survey, patients completed the 40-item draft GCA-PROM alongside EQ5D-5L, CAT-PRO5 and self-report of GCA disease activity. Rasch and factor analysis were used in an iterative manner to determine the underlying construct validity of the new PROM. Items were fitted to the Rasch model to determine its construct validity, reliability, unidimensionality and statistical sufficiency of the total score from the scale. Factor analysis was used to establishing factor structure. Item reduction decisions were be based on clinical importance, lack of fit to the Rasch model, and redundancy detected during principal component analysis. External validity was tested by comparing the scores of the newly validated GCA-PROM (i) in participants who self-identify as having ‘active disease’ versus patients ‘in remission’ (known groups validity) (ii) with scores derived from EQ5D-5L and CAT-PRO5 (convergent validity).

Results

The survey included 428 patients; 327 (76%) cranial GCA, 114 (26.6%) large vessel vasculitis and 142 (33.2%) ocular involvement. 285 (67%) of participants were female with a mean age (SD) of 74.2 (7.2). 167 (39%) temporal artery biopsies and 177 (41.4%) temporal artery ultrasounds, and 51 (11.9%) Positron Emission Tomography and Computed Tomography (PET-CT)s were reported as positive. 108 (25%) received second-line immunosuppressants, and 34 (7.9%) anti-IL6 therapy. Active disease was reported in 197 (46%). Four factors (domains) were identified after deletion of 10 redundant items: Acute symptoms (8 items), Activities of daily living (7 items), Psychological (7 items) and Participation (8 items). The four domains were analysed as ‘super-items’ and shown to fit the Rasch model. The overall scale had an adequate fit to the Rasch model: X2 = 25.219, DF=24, p=0.394 including reliability PSI=0.828. The raw-to-linear transformation scale was calibrated to enable parametric analyses if desired. Each domain was shown to have known-groups validity (p<0.001 patients reporting active versus inactive disease) and correlation with EQ5D-5L and CAT-PRO5 (Rs) ranging between 0.4.42 and 0.778.

Conclusion

The GCA-PROM is a new patient reported outcome measure for patients with GCA which demonstrates good internal and external validity.

References

[1]Robson JC, Almeida C, Dawson J, Bromhead A, Dures E, Guly C, Hoon E, Mackie S, Ndosi M, Pauling J, Hill C. Patient perceptions of health-related quality of life in giant cell arteritis; international development of a disease-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021:keab076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab076

Disclosure of Interests

Joanna Robson Speakers bureau: Vifor Pharma EULAR 2021 Symposium, Consultant of: Vifor Pharma Advisory board 2021, Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma Steroid PRO grant, Celia Almeida: None declared, Jill Dawson: None declared, Emma Dures: None declared, Rosemary Greenwood: None declared, Catherine Guly: None declared, Sarah Mackie Speakers bureau: Roche/Chugai Educational talk on GCA., Consultant of: Roche/Chugai

Sanofi

Abbvie (2021-)

AstraZeneca (2021-), Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma Steroid PRO 2020

Vifor Pharma GTI Validation 2020

Roche GCA Tocilizumab Registry 2019

, Alison Bromhead: None declared, Steve Stern: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared

POS0040-HPR PATIENT PERCEPTIONS OF IMPACT OF GLUCOCORTICOID THERAPY IN THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES: INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF A TREATMENT-SPECIFIC PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE

Background

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a key treatment for inflammatory rheumatic diseases, but they cause a wide range of adverse side-effects which are of concern both to patients and clinicians.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to explore the impact of GC therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during treatment for rheumatic diseases, as a basis for development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) to be used in clinical trials and practice.

Methods

Patients from the UK, USA and Australia who were treated with GCs in the last two years for a rheumatic condition were invited to take part in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Purposive sampling was used to include participants with a range of demographic and disease features. A steering committee of patient research partners, clinicians and methodologists devised an initial conceptual framework, which informed interview prompts and cues. Interviews were carried out by experienced qualitative researchers who encouraged participants to tell their stories and talk about the effects, both adverse and beneficial, of their experiences and perceptions of treatment with GCs, to identify salient physical and psychological symptoms and aspects of HRQoL. The interview data were organised using NVivo, and inductive analysis identified initial themes and domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed and refined using cognitive interviewing, linguistic assessment, and input from patient research partners.

Results

Sixty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (UK n=34, USA n=10, Australia n=16). Mean participant age was 58 years; 39 (66.1%) were female. Purposive sampling of participants provided a broad range of demographic features, GC dosages and inflammatory rheumatic conditions, with 27% having connective tissue disease, 25% inflammatory arthritis, 30% systemic vasculitis and 16% other rheumatic conditions.

Initial domains were developed to identify key themes relating to treatment using GCs and their impact on HRQoL; see Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Steroid PRO Initial Themes

A long-list of 134 initial candidate questionnaire items was developed from the individual themes. These items were reviewed by a qualitative working group of patient research partners, researchers and clinicians to reduce duplication and ambiguity of items. The resulting 62 items were tested and refined by piloting with patient research partners, iterative rounds of cognitive interviews with patients with a range of rheumatic conditions from the UK, USA and Australia, and a linguistic translatability assessment, to define a draft questionnaire of 40 items.

Conclusion

This international qualitative study underpins the development of candidate items for a treatment-specific PROM for patients with rheumatic diseases. The draft questionnaire is currently being tested in an online large-scale survey to determine the final scale structure and measurement properties using Rasch analysis, factor analysis, test-retest, comparison with EQ5D, and known groups analysis.

Disclosure of Interests

Susan Bridgewater Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma, Michael A Shepherd Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma, Jill Dawson: None declared, Pamela Richards: None declared, Christine Silverthorne: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared, Celia Almeida: None declared, Rachel J Black: None declared, Jonathan T.L. Cheah: None declared, Emma Dures: None declared, Nilasha Ghosh: None declared, Elizabeth A Hoon: None declared, Suellen Lyne: None declared, Iris Navarro-Millan Consultant of: Honorarium on Swedish Orpham Biovitrum (SOBI) advisory board 2021, Diyu Pearce-Fisher: None declared, Carlee Ruediger: None declared, Joanna Tieu: None declared, Kevin Yip: None declared, Sarah Mackie: None declared, Susan Goodman: None declared, Catherine Hill: None declared, Joanna Robson Speakers bureau: EULAR Symposium 2021 for Vifor Pharma, Consultant of: Honorarium for Vifor Pharma advisory board 2021, Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma 2020-2022

OP0155-HPR REMOTE MANAGEMENT OF RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS VS ROUTINE OUTPATIENT FOLLOW-UP: A PROSPECTIVE, LONGITUDINAL REAL-WORLD STUDY

Background:

Remote management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using patient self-assessment of disease and patient-reported outcomes has potential to inform timely clinical decisions on disease management, reduce burden on busy rheumatology services and promote effective self-management. However, it is unclear how patients’ self-reporting relates to treatment decisions.

Objectives:

To determine the agreement between remote treatment decisions based on patient self-assessment questionnaire assessed blindly by a health professional and treatment decisions based on routine outpatient monitoring appointments.

Methods:

This was a prospective real-world study including patients (who gave informed consent) enrolled in an observational study of RA patients starting a new biologic therapy.

Enrolled patients continued with their usual care and usual clinic monitoring. In addition, they completed at home, self-assessment questionnaires at monthly intervals, including: two self-reported components which are collected as part of routine clinical practice (joint stiffness and flare), visual analogue scales for pain, global health and fatigue; and HAQ-DI and self-efficacy scales (Arthritis Self-Efficacy Pain and Other Symptoms subscales) at inclusion visits, 12 and 24 months.

Remote treatment decisions were made by an independent (blinded) health professional, based on the self-assessment questionnaires and information collected in the study: medical history, ongoing therapies for RA, clinical outcomes, adverse events and toxicity. In this analysis, the independent blinded clinician did not have the same information as the routine hospital visit clinician (blood results and joints assessment).

The remote decisions were matched with the hospital visit decisions (within 2 weeks) and the measure of agreement between the 2 raters (independent blinded health professional and clinician at outpatient appointment) were evaluated using kappa coefficient: <0.2, 0.21-0.40, 0.41-0.60, 0.61-0.80 and 0.81-0.99 representing poor, fair, moderate, substantial and almost perfect agreement respectively.

Results:

A total of 72 RA patients were recruited into the sub-study: mean (SD) age 57.8 (11.6), disease duration 11.7 (10.3) and 52 (87%) were female. The pre-categorised remote decisions were: no change to biologic, stop biologic, add concomitant DMARD, reduction/removal of a concomitant DMARD and bring in for review. There were 57 matched decisions between the independent health professional and the outpatient clinicians. The outpatient clinician made 7 changes to biologic and 18 non-biologic therapy changes, while the remote health professional made 1 change to biologic and 17 changes to a non-biologic DMARD including bringing in for review. The self-assessment questionnaires reported 34 RA flares of which 21 had resolved. In the matched decisions, there was only one adverse event that needed stopping treatment, identified by both the remote and the outpatient treatment. The independent health professional and the outpatient clinician had a ‘fair’ agreement on changes to biologic therapy (Kappa = 0.226, p = 0.007) and overall changes to RA therapy (Kappa = 0.24, p = 0.07).

Conclusion:

Remote RA monitoring using patient self-assessment and outcome measures was feasible with fair agreement on treatment decisions. Further work is required on understanding the importance of adding blood test monitoring to remote decision-making.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS0158-HPR UNDERSTANDING NURSE-LED CARE IN EARLY RA: INTERVIEW STUDY WITH RHEUMATOLOGY NURSE SPECIALISTS

Background:

Nurse-led care in early RA is not well defined in the literature and the current recommendations.

Objectives:

This study aimed to develop an understanding of what comprises nurse-led care in early RA from the perspective of rheumatology nurse specialists.

Methods:

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with rheumatology nurse specialists in England (Summer 2020). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis.[1]

Results:

Sixteen nurses were recruited and interviews lasted between 30 to 60 minutes. Seven themes were identified.

Early disease management

Care was characterised by evidence-based RA management provided by experienced nurse specialists with a high degree of autonomy, in the context of a rheumatology multidisciplinary team. The aims of care were to: start treatment, keep in treatment, educate and support.

’So treat to target...escalating treatment as necessary, and addressing any concerns that the patients might have’ (CNS14)

Addressing psychosocial needs

Patients with early RA experience shock, fear, anger, grief and denial while feeling unwell with pain and fatigue. Nurses use a holistic, person-centred and empathetic approach to address psychosocial needs, building a working relationship, listening and creating trust.

’Because it all relates, and if they’re stressed because they’re not coping at work, then their arthritis isn’t going to be so good. So everything relates to one another really’ (CNS06)

Monitoring treatment, disease impact and patient outcomes

Nurses monitor disease activity and disease impact using validated outcome measures and by asking questions during the consultation. Good outcomes are disease control, managing disease impact, medication and side effects, wellbeing and keeping in work.

’When you get them stable, when you get them into remission, when they’re happy, when they’re feeling well, I think there’s lots of ways you can measure that’… (CNS13)

Coordinating care, referring and signposting

Nurses coordinate care, refer to other health professionals and signpost patients to relevant services and charities. Lack of access to psychology expertise was highlighted.

‘And whilst most of us have got some degree of understanding of…self management, or psychology…we’re not psychologists’ (CNS02)

Providing a ‘lifeline’

Nurse-led telephone advice services provide a ‘lifeline’ for patients. If patients struggle, they can call and speak with a specialist who knows them and their RA well.

’The advice line has been a lifeline to them, to be able to speak to someone, to be able to get a response quickly to their questions, they feel very well supported, they know that they can always call us’ (CNS16)

Service evaluation and auditing

The individual clinics are reviewed regularly. Patients are asked for feedback on their experience of appointments, if their needs were met and about changes to the service.

...‘It’s really important to ask them initially what they expect to have from the consultation...We’ve always had really good feedback in general’… (CNS02)

COVID-19 challenges and opportunities

The pandemic caused major disruptions to the services, prohibiting most face-to-face consultations which was an essential aspect of clinical assessments. Despite the challenges imposed by the pandemic, the services adapted fast, using telephone, video clinics and digital solutions, which streamlined procedures and improved documentation and communication.

‘I do have to rely on them telling me what’s going on, because I can’t see it at the moment’ (CNS14)

’With Covid we’re doing it over the telephone, and we’re getting them to watch the video [injection tutorial] before we have the appointment with them’ (CNS04)

Conclusion:

Nurse-led care in early arthritis is a specialist service, addressing complex needs of patients, using evidence based and person-centred approaches. Innovation and service improvement are seen as part of the role.

References:

[1]Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research. First edition. London: SAGE 2013.

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

POS1472-HPR CLINICIANS’ PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS AND MEETING PATIENTS’ SUPPORT NEEDS IN RHEUMATOLOGY CARE SETTINGS

Background:

People with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) face challenges that include fluctuations in pain, fatigue and flares of disease activity, complex medical regimens, and decisions about when to seek clinical help with symptoms [1,2]. Evidence suggests levels of anxiety and depression are higher in people with IRDs compared to the general population [3]. Rheumatology teams report that psychologically distressed patients can have additional support needs and require more time. Patients’ concerns include health-related anxiety and difficulty accepting the diagnosis. This group can have poor outcomes and poor adherence to treatments. However, little is currently known about optimal ways to meet these patients’ support needs.

Objectives:

To understand rheumatology clinicians’ perspectives on psychological distress in care settings with the long-term aim to develop a proposed model/pathway of support.

Methods:

Telephone interviews were conducted with members of UK rheumatology teams who have clinical experience with patients experiencing distress. The semi-structured interviews explored both ‘what happens now’ (current clinical practice) and ‘what should happen’ (acceptable models of future psychological support provision). The semi-structured format provided flexibility to probe more deeply and develop new lines of enquiry based on participants’ responses.

Results:

Fourteen interviews were conducted with rheumatology clinicians including 2 consultants, 4 nurses, 1 physiotherapist, 4 occupational therapists, 2 clinical psychologists and 1 podiatrist. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Two main themes represent the data (Table 1).

Table 1.Main ThemeSub-themes1. ‘No one shoe fits all’ – the many manifestations of distress in patients.‘I pick up on distress as increased emotion…tearfulness and sadness I suppose, but also frustration, anger...A lot of helplessness comments’1. ‘Distress can be quite emotive and quite obvious, but then it can also hide away’2. ‘They’re [patients] trying to manage their own conditions, but they’re also trying to manage life’2. ‘If Rheumatology could be interwoven with psychological principles’ – the need to attend to the psychological impact of IRDs, alongside the physical impact.‘The physical and mental health side of things are so closely linked because one affects the other…after a while they [patients] don’t really know what’s affecting what’1. ‘Prioritising physical health…sometimes the stress gets not thought about’2. ‘Make best use of everyone in the team to work with patients who are struggling’3. ‘For the psychological side of things we don’t measure anything about that at all’

Conclusion:

Distress can be obvious or hidden and cause issues for both patient and clinician. It can lead to poor engagement with care provision. Clinicians differ in their perceptions of distress and in their thresholds for dealing with distress and have described the inconsistency of support offered for distressed patients. They described the powerful link between physical and mental distress, the vicious cycle that can develop, and the benefits of incorporating a psychological approach to treatment. This study suggests psychological support should be embedded within the team as it is felt there is a need for speciality understanding and for patients’ emotional wellbeing to consistently be given equal priority to their physical wellbeing.

References:

[1]Gettings L. Psychological well-being in rheumatoid arthritis: a review of the literature. Musculoskeletal care 2010;8(2):99-106. doi: 10.1002/msc.171 [published Online First: 2010/03/17]

[2]Homer D. Addressing psychological and social issues of rheumatoid arthritis within the consultation: a case report. Musculoskeletal care 2005;3(1):54-9. doi: 10.1002/msc.26 [published Online First: 2006/10/17]

[3]Isik A, Koca SS, Ozturk A, et al. Anxiety and depression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical rheumatology 2007;26(6):872-8. doi: 10.1007/s10067-006-0407-y [published Online First: 2006/08/31]

Disclosure of Interests:

None declared

AB0834 DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURE TO CAPTURE PATIENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GLUCOCORTICOID THERAPY DURING TREATMENT FOR RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Background:

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are a key treatment for the autoimmune rheumatic diseases; however, they produce numerous physical and psychological side effects.1 The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid Working Group have identified that there are no Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for assessing the impact of systemic GC therapy across multiple rheumatic diseases from the patient’s perspective.2,3

Objectives:

The aim is to explore the impact of GCs on the symptoms and health-related quality of life of adults with rheumatic inflammatory diseases, to inform items for inclusion in a PROM. Key considerations will include patient perceptions of GC therapy at diagnosis and over the course of treatment, for use in future randomised controlled trials or in clinical practice.

Methods:

An international steering committee comprising researchers, rheumatology clinicians, methodologists and patient partners in the UK, Australia and USA developed an initial conceptual framework informed by a review of the literature. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in each country with patients who had an autoimmune rheumatic disease and had received GC therapy. The interviews explored salient aspects of health-related quality of life associated with being treated with GCs.

Results:

Interviews have been completed in three continents with patients who had a range of demographic features, rheumatological conditions and duration and dosage of GC therapy. Figure 1 shows the initial conceptual framework for developing the GC PROM (Steroid PRO).

Figure 1.

Conclusion:

This conceptual framework will act as an evolving guide in the development of a PROM for assessing patients’ perspectives of systemic glucocorticoid therapy. Future work will include inductive analysis of qualitative transcripts to inform candidate questionnaire items, cognitive interviewing, linguistic translatability assessment, and an international validation survey to define the final PROM questionnaire and its measurement properties.

References:

[1]Cheah JTL, Robson JC, Black RJ, et al. The patient’s perspective of the adverse effects of glucocorticoid use: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. From an OMERACT working group. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020 Oct; 50(5):996-1005.

[2]Black RJ, Robson JC, Goodman SM, et al. A Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Effect of Glucocorticoid Therapy in Adults with Inflammatory Diseases Is Needed: Report from the OMERACT 2016 Special Interest Group. J Rheumatol. 2017; 44(11):1754-8.

[3]Cheah JTL, Black RJ, Robson JC, et al. Toward a Core Domain Set for Glucocorticoid Impact in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: The OMERACT 2018 Glucocorticoid Impact Working Group. J Rheumatol. 2019; 46(9):1179-1182.

Disclosure of Interests:

Susan Bridgewater Grant/research support from: Grant from Vifor Pharma for an independent investigator-led study to develop a PRO for steroids, Jill Dawson: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared, Rachel J Black: None declared, Jonathan T.L. Cheah: None declared, Emma Dures: None declared, Nilasha Ghosh: None declared, Elizabeth A Hoon: None declared, Iris Navarro-Millan Consultant of: Received consultant fees from SOBI, Diyu Pearce-Fisher: None declared, Pamela Richards: None declared, Carlee Ruediger: None declared, Christine Silverthorne: None declared, Joanna Tieu Grant/research support from: Vifor Pharma, Sarah Mackie Consultant of: Consultancy on behalf of institution for Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, AbbVie and AstraZeneca, Grant/research support from: Educational grant from Roche to attend EULAR2019, Susan Goodman: None declared, Catherine Hill: None declared, Joanna Robson Speakers bureau: Vifor Pharma for educational webinar, Grant/research support from: Grant from Vifor Pharma for an independent investigator-led study to develop a PRO for steroids

OP0157-HPR DISSEMINATION AND ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EULAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PATIENT EDUCATION FOR PEOPLE WITH INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS ACROSS EUROPE

Background:

EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) were published in 2015.1This is the first systematic dissemination and implementation study, reporting qualitative data identifying barriers to implementation of the recommendations.

Objectives:

To (i) disseminate and assess the level of acceptability and applicability of the EULAR recommendations for patient education among healthcare professionals and rheumatologists and (ii) assess potential barriers and facilitators to their application in clinical practice.

Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study using survey methods. Survey items were developed in English and translated into 20 different languages before being distributed to health professionals by snowball sampling using an online platform. The items covered demographic information and 10-point rating scales assessing the level of acceptability and applicability of each of the eight recommendations. In addition, textual data fields were provided to assess reasons for disagreeing and barriers to implementation of the recommendations in practice. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively with agreement and applicability levels summarised as median (IQR) scores. Textual data were analysed by content analysis and presented in themes. Finally, collaborators in each country reviewed the top barriers to implementation and proposed facilitators to implementation in their respective countries.

Results:

A total of 2442 responses were recorded from 23 countries, but only 1495 contained complete data. Of complete responses, 74% were women. Most of the professionals were nurses (n=640), rheumatologists (n=369) and physiotherapists (n=232).

Table 1 presents the levels of agreement and applicability of the recommendations. For all recommendations, the level of agreement was high (median=10). However, the level of applicability was generally lower compared to each corresponding agreement level, especially for recommendation 6, which states that the effectiveness of patient education should be evaluated. Lack of an effective evaluation tool was the biggest barrier to implementation.

Table 1.

Levels of agreement and applicability of each recommendation.

AgreementApplicabilityMedianIQRMedianIQRRecommendation 11010 to 1087 to 10Recommendation 21010 to 1086 to 10Recommendation 3109 to 1087 to 10Recommendation 4108 to 1075 to 10Recommendation 5108 to 1075 to 9Recommendation 6108 to 1064 to 8Recommendation 7109 to 1085 to 8Recommendation 81010 to 1085 to 8

There were notable similarities between barriers and facilitators for implementation of the recommendations across countries. The 3 most common barriers to application were; (i) lack of time (ii) lack of training in how to provide patient education and (iii) not having enough staff to provide patient education. The most common facilitators were: tailoring the content and delivery of patient education to individual patients; training providers, and evaluating the effectiveness of patient education with individual patients.

Conclusion:

This project has disseminated the EULAR recommendations for patient education across 23 countries. There was high agreement with the recommendations among health professionals but their application to clinical practice was lower. Some barriers to application are amenable to change such as addressing training needs of health professionals and developing evaluation tools for patient education.

Figure 1.

Recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis.1

References:

[1]Zangi HA, et al. EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritisAnn Rheum Dis. 2015;74:954-962.

Disclosure of Interests:

Sarah Bennett: None declared, Heidi A. Zangi: None declared, Astrid van Tubergen Consultant of: Novartis, Mwidimi Ndosi Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Janssen, Pfizer

THU0623-HPR REVISION AND VALIDATION OF THE GERMAN VERSION OF THE SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE (SSCQOL) WITH MOKKEN SCALE ANALYSIS

Background:

The Systemic Sclerosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (SScQoL) has been validated in six European languages.1Previous adaptation into German revealed issues with the dichotomous response structure in 10 items necessitating a review of the tool and further psychometric testing with patients in German speaking countries.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to assess the German version of the SScQoL, extend the response structure and test its construct validity using Mokken scale analysis.

Methods:

This was a mixed methods study involving cognitive debriefing and survey methods. The expert committee extended the response structure of the 10 items from dichotomous to polytomous (4-point) responses: ‘always’, ‘usually’, ‘sometimes’ and ‘never’. In cognitive debriefing, a small convenience sample of patients with SSc completed the new version while ‘thinking aloud’ and commented on relevance of the items and the response structure.

Results:

In cognitive debriefing, six patients with SSc completed the new German SScQoL and reported problems with the remaining dichotomous items. These were subsequently converted into polytomous 4-point response structure by the expert committee.

Conclusion:

The German SScQoL has been revised into polytomous item structure and shown to be a valid and reliable measure of health-related quality of life in SSc. Further cross-cultural validity tests are required to assess its measurement equivalence with other SScQoL versions and thus enable multinational comparisons.

References:

[1]Ndosi M, Alcacer-Pitarch B, Allanore Y et al. Common measure of quality of life for people with systemic sclerosis across seven European countries: a cross-sectional study. Ann Rheum Dis, 2018; 77: 1032-1038

Table 1.

Mokken scale analysis of the revised German SScQoL

Subscale (items)Scalability (H)Standard errorFunction (6)0.6640.048Emotional (13)0.6520.060Sleep (2)0.7980.061Social (6)0.6920.053Pain (2)0.9600.029Global scale (29)0.6230.062

Table legend: scalabilityH≥ 0.50 = strong, 0.49 to 0.40 = moderate, 0.39 to 0.30 = weak, while values of < 0.30 are not considered as unidimensional.

Disclosure of Interests:

Agnes Kocher Grant/research support from: Sandoz to support the development of an eLearning module for patients with rheumatic diseases., Mwidimi Ndosi Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Janssen, Pfizer, Kirsten Hoeper Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene,, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Chugai, Novartis, Lilly, Celgene, Sandoz Hexal, Michael Simon: None declared, Dunja Nicca: None declared

SAT0643-HPR NURSE-LED CARE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PEOPLE WITH EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A QUALITATIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background:

Nurse-led care has been shown to be clinically effective and cost effective in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the role of the nurse in early RA is not well defined. Evidence for processes of care in RA is limited and it is not known how well rheumatology nurse-led clinics meet care needs of people with early RA.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to develop an understanding of rheumatology nurse-led care from the perspective of people with early RA.

Methods:

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. The review protocol is published in the International prospective register of systematic reviews.

In March 2019, the following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and OpenGrey. Due to lack of studies in early RA this review included adults with early and established inflammatory arthritis, qualitative studies with data on patients’ perspectives of nurse-led care, published in peer-reviewed journals in English between 2010 and 2019. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted and managed in tables. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used for quality assessment of the included studies. A thematic synthesis was undertaken using the framework of Thomas and Harden.1

Results:

The search identified 1034 records. After screening and assessing for eligibility, 8 qualitative studies were included in the review (133 patients), 2 studies included people with early RA. Three main themes were identified (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Themes of nurse-led care from the perspective of people with RA

Providing knowledge and skill. This theme delineated rheumatology nursing as providing professional expertise in the planning and delivery of care. The rheumatology nurse-led service included easy access via telephone helpline, consultations with the clinical nurse specialist for assessment of disease activity and care needs, planning of care, disease information and education, supporting self-management, and referral to rheumatologist and the multi-disciplinary team. People with RA highly valued the nurse expertise and specialist knowledge provided at nurse-led clinics.‘She was very good at informing me, so I have only praise for this ... because I have never had it like this before’. (Person with early RA).

Using a person-centred approach.This theme showed nurse-led care using a person-centred approach combined with empathy and good communication skills, which created a good therapeutic environment. People with RA appreciated the person-centeredness, empathy and involvement of the nurse. ‘She is very sensitive. She can see if I am feeling bad and comes straight to me and asks: “How are you today?” ...You are treated and taken seriously’. (Person with early RA).

Meeting patients‘ care needs. This theme presented nurse-led care as creating a sense of being empowered and psychologically supported in the management of RA and its impact. Nurse-led care made people with RA feel cared for, secure and confident. It added value to rheumatology care and made care complete.‘The thought of sticking a needle into my own stomach... it felt a bit like I would never manage to do that. However, they have been absolutely wonderful here ... and now I can do it myself’. (Person with early RA).

Conclusion:

Nurse-led care for people with RA is characterised by provision of rheumatology expertise using a person-centred approach, and patients‘ holistic care needs are being met. This study found a dearth of literature on perceptions of nurse-led care in people with early RA, which highlights the need for further research in this population.

References:

[1]Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews.BMC Med Res Methodol2008; 8: 45.

Disclosure of Interests:

Anne-Marie Tetsche Sweeney: None declared, Candy McCabe: None declared, Caroline Flurey: None declared, Joanna Robson: None declared, Alice Berry: None declared, Pamela Richards: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Consultant of: Janssen, Pfizer

The educational needs of patients with undifferentiated spondyloarthritis: Validation of the ENAT questionnaire and needs assessment

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to validate the Swedish version of the educational needs assessment tool (SwENAT) in undifferentiated spondyloarthritis (USpA) and use it to study the educational needs of patients with USpA.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study, recruiting a random sample of patients with USpA from a hospital register in Sweden. Educational needs data were collected, together with disease activity and function indices (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI]). Rasch analysis was utilized to evaluate the construct validity, internal consistency and unidimensionality of the SwENAT before studying differences in educational needs between patient subgroups (gender, age and disease severity).

RESULTS

Complete responses were obtained from 77 patients (48 women), with a mean age (standard deviation [SD]) of 50 (12) years, a disease duration of 16 (11) years, a BASDAI score of 4.9 (1.9) and a BASFI score of 3.1 (2.3). The SwENAT satisfied the requirements of the Rasch model (χ² = 11.488; p = 0.119), including strict unidimensionality. Overall, the mean (SD) SwENAT score was 86 (32). Women reported higher needs than men in the domains of pain (mean [SD] 13.1 [6.8] versus 10.1 [6.0]; p = 0.05); movement (mean [SD] 13.0 [5.5] versus 9.9 [5.7]; p = 0.02) and self-help (mean [SD] 17.0 [5.8] versus 14.1 [5.0]; p = 0.03). Higher disease activity (BASDAI >4) was associated with higher educational needs (mean [SD] 92.6 [31.9] versus 73.7 [29.4]; p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that the SwENAT is valid in USpA. Women and patients with higher disease activity are more likely to have high levels of educational needs, so special attention and strategies to target patient education are warranted.

Prognosis of the infected diabetic foot ulcer: a 12-month prospective observational study

AIMS

To determine clinical outcomes and explore prognostic factors related to ulcer healing in people with a clinically infected diabetic foot ulcer.

METHODS

This multicentre, prospective, observational study reviewed participants' data at 12 months after culture of a diabetic foot ulcer requiring antibiotic therapy. From participants' notes, we obtained information on the incidence of wound healing, ulcer recurrence, lower extremity amputation, lower extremity revascularization and death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of healing at 6 and 12 months, adjusted for lower extremity amputation and death using a competing risk analysis, and explored the relationship between baseline factors and healing incidence.

RESULTS

In the first year after culture of the index ulcer, 45/299 participants (15.1%) had died. The ulcer had healed in 136 participants (45.5%), but recurred in 13 (9.6%). An ipsilateral lower extremity amputation was recorded in 52 (17.4%) and revascularization surgery in 18 participants (6.0%). Participants with an ulcer present for ~2 months or more had a lower incidence of healing (hazard ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.77), as did those with a PEDIS (perfusion, extent, depth, infection, sensation) perfusion grade of ≥2 (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.55). Participants with a single ulcer on their index foot had a higher incidence of healing than those with multiple ulcers (hazard ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes at 12 months for people with an infected diabetic foot ulcer are generally poor. Our data confirm the adverse prognostic effect of limb ischaemia, longer ulcer duration and the presence of multiple ulcers.

Effects of needs-based patient education on self-efficacy and health outcomes in people with rheumatoid arthritis: a multicentre, single blind, randomised controlled trial

Objectives

The Educational Needs Assessment Tool (ENAT) is a self-completed questionnaire, which allows patients with arthritis to prioritise their educational needs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of needs-based patient education on self-efficacy, health outcomes and patient knowledge in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients with RA were enrolled into this multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to either the intervention group (IG) where patients completed ENAT, responses of which were used by the clinical nurse specialist to guide patient education; or control group (CG) in which they received patient education without the use of ENAT. Patients were seen at weeks 0, 16 and 32. The primary outcome was self-efficacy (Arthritis Self Efficacy Scale (ASES)-Pain and ASES-Other symptoms). Secondary outcomes were health status (short form of Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2, AIMS2-SF) and patient knowledge questionnaire-RA. We investigated between-group differences using analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline variables.

Results

A total of 132 patients were recruited (IG=70 and CG=62). Their mean (SD) age was 54 (12.3) years, 56 (13.3)  years and disease duration 5.2 (4.9) years, 6.7 (8.9) years for IG and CG, respectively. There were significant between-group differences, in favour of IG at week 32 in the primary outcomes, ASES-Pain, mean difference (95% CI) −4.36 (1.17 to 7.55), t=−2.72, p=0.008 and ASES-Other symptoms, mean difference (95% CI) −5.84 (2.07 to 9.62), t=−3.07, p=0.003. In secondary outcomes, the between-group differences favoured IG in AIMS2-SF Symptoms and AIMS2-SF Affect. There were no between-group differences in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

The results suggest that needs-based education helps improve patients’ self-efficacy and some aspects of health status.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN51523281.

CROSS-CULTURAL VALIDATION OF THE PORTUGUESE VERSION OF THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL (PortENAT)

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the educational needs assessment tool (ENAT) into Portuguese.

METHODS

The first phase of this research (cross-cultural adaptation) utilised a well-established translation method comprising five sequential steps: forward-translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, expert committee and field-testing of the adapted version. The second phase involved collecting data from 123 patients and subjecting them to Rasch analysis for validity testing including cross-cultural invariance.

RESULTS

The translation and field-testing phase went smoothly giving rise to minor adjustments in the phrasing of some items. The preliminary analysis of the 39 items, revealed some deviations from the model with the overall item-person interaction fit statistics 2(df) = 56.025 (39), p = 0.038. Significant item-item correlations caused artificial inflation of the internal consistency, therefore violating the model assumption of local independence of items. To correct this, all locally dependent items were then grouped into their respective domains, creating a 7 testlet-scale which demonstrated a good fit to the Rasch model, 2(df) = 2.625 (7), p = 0.917 and internal consistency PSI = 0.975. Analysis of the pooled (Portuguese and the English) data revealed cross-cultural DIF, requiring adjustments in two testlets: 'treatments' and 'support' which ensured cross-cultural equivalence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the Portuguese ENAT is a robust unidimensional tool with which to assess the educational needs of Portuguese people with RA. Cross-cultural adjustments are required only if the data from Portugal and the UK are pooled or compared. The tool is now available for use in clinical practice and research.