Perceptions of risk and predictive testing held by the first-degree relatives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in England, Austria and Germany: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The family members of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing RA and are potential candidates for predictive testing. This study explored the perceptions of first-degree relatives of people with RA about being at risk of RA and engaging in predictive testing.

METHODS

34 first-degree relatives (siblings and offspring) of patients with RA from the UK, Germany and Austria participated in semistructured interviews about their perceptions of RA risk and the prospect of predictive testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

First-degree relatives were aware of their susceptibility to RA, but were unsure of the extent of their risk. When considering their future risk, some relatives were concerned about the potential impact that RA would have on their lives. Relatives were concerned that knowing their actual risk would increase their anxiety and would affect decisions about their future. Also, relatives were concerned about the levels of uncertainty associated with predictive testing. Those in favour of knowing their future risk felt that they would need additional support to understand the risk information and cope with the emotional impact of this information.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying individuals at risk of RA may allow targeted interventions to reduce the risk and consequence of future disease; however, relatives have concerns about predictive testing and risk information. The development of strategies to quantify and communicate risk needs to take these views into account and incorporate approaches to mitigate concerns and minimise the psychological impact of risk information.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

BACKGROUND

Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion.

METHODS

A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived.

RESULTS

The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1-3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10).

CONCLUSIONS

The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis

Objectives

The task force aimed to: (1) develop evidence-based recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis, (2) identify the need for further research on PE and (3) determine health professionals’ educational needs in order to provide evidence-based PE.

Methods

A multidisciplinary task force, representing 10 European countries, formulated a definition for PE and 10 research questions that guided a systematic literature review (SLR). The results from the SLR were discussed and used as a basis for developing the recommendations, a research agenda and an educational agenda. The recommendations were categorised according to level and strength of evidence graded from A (highest) to D (lowest). Task force members rated their agreement with each recommendation from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement).

Results

Based on the SLR and expert opinions, eight recommendations were developed, four with strength A evidence. The recommendations addressed when and by whom PE should be offered, modes and methods of delivery, theoretical framework, outcomes and evaluation. A high level of agreement was achieved for all recommendations (mean range 9.4–9.8). The task force proposed a research agenda and an educational agenda.

Conclusions

The eight evidence-based and expert opinion-based recommendations for PE for people with inflammatory arthritis are intended to provide a core framework for the delivery of PE and training for health professionals in delivering PE across Europe.

Definitions of occupational balance and their coverage by instruments

Introduction

Occupational balance is an important and widely used concept in occupational therapy and occupational science. There is, however, not one unified definition in use, but several different ones, and thus instruments that measure the concept in research studies are diverse as well. Consequently, it is unclear how instruments and definitions correspond. The purpose of this study was to examine the coverage of occupational balance definitions by occupational balance instruments.

Method

Within a mixed-methods design we conducted a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of definitions and items of existing instruments. Definitions and items were extracted from articles identified in a systematic literature search. The extent of congruence and coverage between definitions and instruments was examined.

Results

The definitions used in 47 articles were structured into 19 categories. The categories which were found in most definitions were a balance of ‘various occupational patterns and areas’ (42; 89%) and ‘occupational accomplishment, performance, roles and responsibilities’ (35; 75%); 20 instruments were explored. Together they covered 16 (84%) of the 19 categories.

Conclusion

Knowing which instruments cover which dimensions of occupational balance can support occupational therapists, other health professionals and health researchers in their selection of an instrument to measure occupational balance.

Health determining concepts important to people with Crohn's disease and their coverage by patient-reported outcomes of health and wellbeing

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Busy clinical settings often restrict the possibility to focus on concepts that determine health in a positive way, commonly assessed by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We aimed to explore which determinants of health (DHs) are important to people with Crohn's disease (CD), to understand possible gender differences and to analyze whether these DHs are covered by PROs used in CD.

METHODS

Two systematic literature reviews were done to identify relevant DHs and clinically relevant PROs. We conducted a qualitative narrative biographical study and mapped the patients' experiences to concepts that determine health in a positive way. Experiences, DHs and the items of the PROs were compared by the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a common framework.

RESULTS

15 people with CD with a median age of 46 years (IQR 34-60) and median disease duration of 15 years (IQR 8-30) participated. Self-efficacy, social support, job satisfaction and occupational balance were mentioned most frequently. While participation appeared to have greater meaning to men, appreciation and resilience seemed to be more important for women. Of 18 PROs the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ), the Inflammatory Bowel disease - Self-efficacy scale (IBD-SES), the Life Orientation Test - Revised (LOT-R) and the Patient Activation Measure 13 (PAM-13) cover most DHs.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study elaborating the coverage of patient's perspective by commonly used PROs in CD. The findings could support health professionals to focus on DHs in people with CD in clinical practice and research.

Development of healthcare quality indicators for rheumatoid arthritis in Europe: the eumusc.net project

BACKGROUND

Eumusc.net (http://www.eumusc.net) is a European project supported by the EU and European League Against Rheumatism to improve musculoskeletal care in Europe.

OBJECTIVE

To develop patient-centred healthcare quality indicators (HCQIs) for healthcare provision for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

Based on a systematic literature search, existing HCQIs for RA were identified and their contents analysed and categorised referring to a list of 16 standards of care developed within the eumusc.net. An international expert panel comprising 14 healthcare providers and two patient representatives added topics and during repeated Delphi processes by email ranked the topics and rephrased suggested HCQIs with the preliminary set being established during a second expert group meeting. After an audit process by rheumatology units (including academic centres) in six countries (The Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Italy, Austria and Sweden), a final version of the HCQIs was established.

RESULTS

56 possible topics for HCQIs were processed resulting in a final set of HCQIs for RA (n=14) including two for structure (patient information and calculation of composite scores), 11 for process (eg, access to care, assessments, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments) and one for outcome (effect of treatment on disease activity). They included definitions to be used in clinical practice and also by patients. Further, the numerators and the denominators for each HCQI were defined.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of 14 patient-centred HCQIs for RA was developed to be used in quality improvement and bench marking in countries across Europe.