Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development.

METHODS AND SETTING

This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets

OBJECTIVE

To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets.

METHODS

We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions.

RESULTS

One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains.

CONCLUSION

Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

Assessing domain match and feasibility of candidate instruments matching with OMERACT endorsed domains to measure flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the domain match (truth) and feasibility of candidate instruments assessing flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) according to the identified domains.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From a literature review (575 papers), instruments were selected and evaluated using the truth and feasibility elements of the OMERACT Filter 2.2. These were evaluated by 26 experts, including patients, in two Delphi survey rounds. The final selection was obtained by a vote.

RESULTS

44 instruments were identified. In Delphi Round 1, five instruments were selected. In Round 2, all instruments obtained at least 75 % in terms of content match with the endorsed domains and feasibility. In the final selection, the Flare-OA questionnaire obtained 100 % favorable votes.

CONCLUSION

Through consensus of the working group, the Flare-OA questionnaire was selected as the best candidate instrument to move into a full assessment of its measurement properties using the OMERACT Filter 2.2.

Association of mycophenolate and azathioprine use with cognitive function in systemic lupus

OBJECTIVES

Cognitive dysfunction (CD) is a common manifestation of SLE that can have detrimental consequences for those affected. To date, no treatments have been approved for SLE-CD. This study aims to assess the association of azathioprine (AZA) and mycophenolate (MMF) use with SLE-CD, given that these medications have demonstrated neuroprotective qualities in prior studies.

METHODS

Consecutive adult SLE patients presenting to a single healthcare center were considered for participation. The ACR neuropsychological battery for SLE was administered to consenting patients at 0, 6 and 12 months. Scores were compared with age- and sex-matched controls. Primary outcome was CD, defined as a z-score ≤-1.5 in two or more cognitive domains. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were constructed to estimate the odds of CD with respect to AZA and MMF use.

RESULTS

A total of 300 participants representing 676 patient visits completed the study; 114 (38%) met criteria for CD at baseline. The cumulative AZA dose (g/kg) was associated with reduced odds of CD [odds ratio (OR) 0.76 (95% CI 0.58, 0.98), P = 0.04]. Years of AZA treatment was also associated with reduced odds of CD [OR 0.72 (95% CI 0.54, 0.97), P = 0.03]. MMF use was not associated with CD.

CONCLUSION

AZA use was associated with significantly lower odds of SLE-CD, while MMF use was not. Additional studies are warranted to further investigate the relationship of AZA and SLE-CD.

A Sensibility Assessment of the Job Demands and Accommodation Planning Tool (JDAPT): A Tool to Help Workers with an Episodic Disability Plan Workplace Support

Purpose Sensibility refers to a tool's comprehensiveness, understandability, relevance, feasibility, and length. It is used in the early development phase to begin assessing a new tool or intervention. This study examined the sensibility of the job demands and accommodation planning tool (JDAPT). The JDAPT identifies job demands related to physical, cognitive, interpersonal, and working conditions to better target strategies for workplace supports and accommodations aimed at assisting individuals with chronic health conditions. Methods Workers with a chronic health condition and workplace representatives were recruited from health charities, workplaces, and newsletters using convenience sampling. Cognitive interviews assessed the JDAPT's sensibility. A 70% endorsement rate was the minimum level of acceptability for sensibility concepts. A short screening tool also was administered, and answers compared to the complete JDAPT. Results Participants were 46 workers and 23 organizational representatives (n = 69). Endorsements highly exceeded the 70% cut-off for understandability, relevance, and length. Congruence between screening questions and the complete JDAPT suggested both workers and organizational representatives overlooked job demands when completing the screener. Participants provided additional examples and three new items to improve comprehensiveness. The JDAPT was rated highly relevant and useful, although not always easy to complete for someone with an episodic condition. Conclusions This study highlights the need for tools that facilitate accommodations for workers with episodic disabilities and provides early evidence for the sensibility of the JDAPT.

Assessing the Utility of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in Screening for Cognitive Impairment in Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

OBJECTIVE

Screening for cognitive impairment (CI) in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relies on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) neuropsychological battery (NB). By studying the concurrent criterion validity, our goal was to assess the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) as a screening tool for CI compared to the ACR-NB and to evaluate the added value of the MoCA to the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics (ANAM).

METHODS

A total of 285 adult SLE patients were administered the ACR-NB, MoCA, and ANAM. For the ACR-NB, patients were classified as having CI if there was a Z score of ≤-1.5 in ≥2 domains. The area under the curve (AUC) and sensitivities/specificities were determined. A discriminant function analysis was applied to assess the ability of the MoCA to differentiate between CI, undetermined CI, and non-CI patients.

RESULTS

CI was not accurately identified by the MoCA compared to the ACR-NB (AUC of 0.66). Sensitivity and specificity were poor at 50% and 69%, respectively, for the cutoff of 26, and 80% and 45%, respectively, for the cutoff of 28. The MoCA had a low ability to identify CI status. The addition of the MoCA to the ANAM led to improvement on the AUC by only 2.5%.

CONCLUSION

The MoCA does not have adequate concurrent criterion validity to accurately identify CI in patients with SLE. The low specificity of the MoCA may lead to overdiagnosis and concern among patients. Adding the MoCA to the ANAM does not substantially improve the accuracy of the ANAM. These results do not support using the MoCA as a screening tool for CI in patients with SLE.

Composite outcomes at OMERACT: Multi-outcome domains and composite outcome domains

The OMERACT Technical Advisory Group recognises that working groups during the process of creating a core outcome set may identify an outcome domain that would be best represented as a composite that encapsulates these component outcome domains by bringing them together into a single outcome. A multi-outcome domain (MOD) is a within-patient combination of component outcomes, and an individual patient's evaluation depends on the observation of all of the components in that patient with a single overall rating determined according to a specified rule; which is often applicable when we consider a disease activity score. A composite outcome domain (COD) consists of a number of component outcomes and is defined as the occurrence in a patient of one, some or all of these specified components; which is often applicable when we consider the risk of adverse events or remission criteria. We review the general benefits, challenges, reporting and interpretation of using MODs and CODs. The development of the MOD or COD instrument for an OMERACT core outcome measurement set is considered through four distinct steps: choosing relevant outcome domains; finding high quality instruments for each of these outcome domains; weighting the outcome domain instruments in the MOD/COD instrument; and putting MOD/COD instrument through the OMERACT Filter. Guidance and training are in preparation for working groups who will be completing the OMERACT Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA). As for other initiatives in OMERACT, we will seek feedback from OMERACT working groups who complete the development of their MOD/COD, which will then be incorporated into the refinement of the guidance and training.

Core outcome measurement instrument selection for physical function in hand osteoarthritis using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 process

OBJECTIVE

Physical function is one of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core outcome domains for hand osteoarthritis studies. Our aim was to select appropriate instrument(s) to measure this domain, as part of the development of a core outcome measurement set.

METHODS

Following the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection process, the (function subscale of) the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed for domain match, feasibility, truth and discrimination. Data gathered from available literature, working group and patient surveys, and additional analyses in two hand osteoarthritis cohorts were used to inform a consensus process. Results were summarized in Summary of Measurements Properties tables and reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group.

RESULTS

MHQ passed the assessment of domain match and feasibility by the working group and patient research partners. For AUSCAN important limitations in feasibility were noted, but domain match was good. FIHOA did not pass the assessment and was not taken through the follow-up assessment. Based on published literature, reliability and construct/longitudinal validity of both MHQ and AUSCAN fulfilled OMERACT standards. While clinical trial discrimination and thresholds of meaning were good for AUSCAN, results for MHQ were ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

MHQ was provisionally endorsed as OMERACT core outcome measure for the core domain physical function. While AUSCAN may have better metric properties than MHQ, it received provisional endorsement as a second measure of function due to important feasibility issues. A research agenda to merit full endorsement was set.

Improving domain definition and outcome instrument selection: Lessons learned for OMERACT from imaging

OBJECTIVES

Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA.

METHODS

Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection.

RESULTS

Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

The evolution of instrument selection for inclusion in core outcome sets at OMERACT: Filter 2.2

INTRODUCTION

OMERACT uses an evidence-based framework known as the 'OMERACT Filter Instrument Selection Algorithm' (OFISA) to guide decisions in the assessment of outcome measurement instruments for inclusion in a core outcome set for interventional and observational clinical trials.

METHODS

A group of OMERACT imaging and patient-centered outcome methodologists worked with imaging outcome groups to facilitate the selection of imaging outcome measurement instruments using the OFISA approach. The lessons learned from this work influenced the evolution to Filter 2.2 and necessitated changes to OMERACT's documentation and processes.

RESULTS

OMERACT has revised documentation and processes to incorporate the evolution of instrument selection to Filter 2.2. These revisions include creation of a template for detailed definitions of the target domain which is a necessary first step for instrument selection, modifications to the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table to account for sources of variability, and development of standardized reporting tables for each measurement property.

CONCLUSIONS

OMERACT Filter 2.2 represents additional modifications of the OMERACT guide for working groups in their rigorous assessment of measurement properties of instruments of various types, including imaging outcome measurement instruments. Enhanced reporting aims to increase the transparency of the evidence base leading to judgements for the endorsement of instruments in core outcome sets.

Metrics and definitions used in the assessment of cognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review: 1) degree of conformity to the American College of Rheumatology neuropsychological battery (ACR-NB) among studies that used a NB, 2) review definitions of cognitive impairment (CI) from studies that used a NB, and 3) characterize measurement tools used to assess CI in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO for articles on CI in adult SLE patients. We reviewed studies that used a NB and compared their tests to the ACR-NB to assess the degree of conformity. Definitions of CI from studies that used a NB were reviewed when sufficient information was available. We reviewed and categorized CI measurement tools into four broad categories: NB, screening, incomplete/mixed batteries, and computerized batteries.

RESULTS

Of 8727 references, 118 were selected for detailed review and 97 were included in the final analysis. Of 43 studies that used a NB, none of the studies used the ACR-NB exactly as published. Many studies supplemented with other tests. Overall, there was inconsistent use of ACR-NB tests. Definitions for CI varied, with cut-offs ranging from 1 to 3 standard deviations below normative values on domains/tests varying in type and number. The most frequently used measurement tool for assessing CI in SLE was a NB. Use of screening tests and computerized batteries have also increased over the last decade.

CONCLUSION

The assessment and definition of CI in SLE remains heterogeneous. A consensus meeting to address existing inconsistencies should be considered to harmonize the field of CI in SLE.

Disclosure, Privacy and Workplace Accommodation of Episodic Disabilities: Organizational Perspectives on Disability Communication-Support Processes to Sustain Employment

Purpose Employers increasingly are asked to accommodate workers living with physical and mental health conditions that cause episodic disability, where periods of wellness are punctuated by intermittent and often unpredictable activity limitations (e.g., depression, anxiety, arthritis, colitis). Episodic disabilities may be challenging for workplaces which must comply with legislation protecting the privacy of health information while believing they would benefit from personal health details to meet a worker's accommodation needs. This research aimed to understand organizational perspectives on disability communication-support processes. Methods Twenty-seven participants from diverse employment sectors and who had responsibilities for supporting workers living with episodic disabilities (e.g., supervisors, disability managers, union representatives, occupational health representatives, labour lawyers) were interviewed. Five participants also had lived experience of a physical or mental health episodic disability. Participants were recruited through organizational associations, community networks and advertising. Semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis framed data collection and analyses, and mapped communication-support processes. Results Seven themes underpinned communication-support process: (1) similarities and differences among physical and mental health episodic disabilities; (2) cultures of workplace support, including contrasting medical and biopsychosocial perspectives; (3) misgivings about others and their role in communication-support processes; (4) that subjective perceptions matter; (5) the inherent complexity of the response process; (6) challenges arising when a worker denies a disability; and (7) casting disability as a performance problem. Conclusions This study identifies a conceptual framework and areas where workplace disability support processes could be enhanced to improve inclusion and the sustainability of employment among workers living with episodic disabilities.

Men and Women's Occupational Activities and the Risk of Developing Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Hip, or Hands: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Research

Objective

To systematically review the evidence for an increased risk of osteoarthritis in the hip, knee, hand, wrist, finger, ankle, foot, shoulder, neck, and spine related to diverse occupational activities of men and women and to examine dose‐response information related to the frequency, intensity, and duration of work exposures and the risk of osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

Established guidelines for systematic reviews in occupational health and safety studies were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2017. Studies were reviewed for relevance, quality was appraised, and data were extracted and synthesized.

Results

Sixty‐nine studies from 23 countries yielded strong and moderate evidence for lifting, cumulative physical loads, full‐body vibration, and kneeling/squatting/bending as increasing the risks of developing OA in men and women. Strong and moderate evidence existed for no increased risk of OA related to sitting, standing, and walking (hip and knee OA), lifting and carrying (knee OA), climbing ladders (knee OA), driving (knee OA), and highly repetitive tasks (hand OA). Variability in dose‐response data resulted in an inability to synthesize these data.

Conclusion

Evidence points to the potential for OA occupational recommendations and practice considerations to be developed for women and men. However, research attention is needed to overcome deficits in the measurement and recall of specific work activities so that recommendations and practice considerations can provide the specificity needed to be adopted in workplaces.

Factors associated with screening positive for high falls risk in fragility fracture patients: a cross-sectional study

Background

We sought to report the prevalence of fragility fracture patients who were screened at high falls risk using a large provincial database, and to determine the characteristics associated with being screened at high falls risk.

Methods

The study population included fragility fracture patients 50+ years of age who were screened at 35 hospital fracture clinics in Ontario over a 3.5 year period. The outcome was based on two screening questions measuring the risk of falling, both adapted from the STEADI (Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths & Injuries) tool. Multivariable associations of sociodemographic, fracture-related, and health-related characteristics were evaluated using logistic regression.

Results

Of the sample, 9735 (44.5%) patients were classified as being at high falls risk, and 12,089 (55.3%) were not. In the multivariable logistic regression, being 80+ years of age (vs. 50–64 years of age), non-community dwelling (vs. living with spouse, family member, roommate), having a mental/physical impairment (vs. none), and taking multiple medications, were all strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk.

Conclusions

Living in a non-community dwelling and taking 4+ medications were the variables most strongly associated with being screened at high falls risk. These are potentially modifiable characteristics that should be considered when assessing falls risk in fragility fracture patients, and particularly when designing interventions for preventing subsequent falls. Ongoing work to address the higher risk of falls in the fragility fracture population is warranted.

PROM-ED: Development and Testing of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Emergency Department Patients Who Are Discharged Home

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Common outcomes of care valued by emergency department (ED) patients who are not hospitalized have been characterized, but no measurement instrument has been developed to date. We developed and validated a patient-reported outcome measure for use with adult ED patients who are discharged home (PROM-ED).

METHODS

In previous research, 4 main outcomes of importance to ED patients were defined: symptom relief, understanding, reassurance, and having a plan. We developed a bank of potential questions (phase 1) that were first tested for suitability through cognitive debriefing with patients (phase 2). Revised questions were then tested quantitatively with a large panel of participants who had recently received ED care (phase 3). Informed by these results, a panel of experts used a modified Delphi process to make decisions on item reduction. The resulting instrument (PROM-ED 1.0) was then evaluated for its measurement properties (structural validity, hypothesis testing, and reliability).

RESULTS

Sixty-seven questions divided among 4 scales (1 for each outcome domain) were assembled. In accordance with cognitive debriefing with 8 patients (phase 2), 15 questions were modified and 13 removed. Testing of these questions with 444 participants (phase 3) identified problematic floor or ceiling effects (n=10), excessive correlations between items (n=11), and low item-total correlations (n=7). The expert panel (22 participants, phase 4) made decisions using this information on the exclusion of items, resulting in 22 questions across 4 scales that together constitute the PROM-ED 1.0. Testing provided good evidence of validity and test-retest reliability (n=200).

CONCLUSION

The PROM-ED enables the measurement of patient-centered outcomes of importance to patients receiving care in the ED who are not hospitalized. These data could have important applications in research and care improvement.

Multiple simultaneous fractures are associated with higher all-cause mortality: results from a province-wide fracture liaison service

Mortality rates in our fracture liaison service ranged from 2.7% at year 1 to 14.8% at year 5 post-screening. Presentation with multiple simultaneous fractures at screening was associated with higher risk of death. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group.

PURPOSE

To examine all-cause mortality rates in a provincial fracture liaison service (FLS) and the association between the index fracture type, particularly multiple simultaneous fractures, and the risk of death at follow-up.

METHODS

This cohort study includes fragility fracture patients aged 50+, enrolled in a provincial FLS in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2010. All-cause mortality was assessed using administrative data. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the risk of death 5 years after screening.

RESULTS

Crude mortality rates for 6543 fragility fracture patients were 2.7% at year 1, 5.6% at year 2, and 14.8% at year 5 after screening. After adjusting for age and sex, and relative to distal radius fracture, patients with multiple (simultaneous) fractures at screening had a higher risk of dying (HR = 1.8, 95%CI 1.3-2.4), followed by those with a hip fracture (HR = 1.5, 95%CI 1.3-1.8), a proximal humerus fracture (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.2-1.7), and other single fractures (HR = 1.4, 95%CI 1.1-1.7). Having an index ankle fracture was not associated with the risk of death over a distal radius fracture. As compared to the 50-65 age group, patients 66 years and older had a higher risk of death (for 66-70 age group: HR = 2.5, 95%CI 1.9-3.3; for 71-80: HR = 4.3, 95%CI 3.5-5.4; and for 81+: HR = 10.6, 95%CI 8.7-13.0). Females had a lower risk of death (HR = 0.5, 95%CI 0.5-0.6) than males.

CONCLUSIONS

Presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of higher risk of death relative to a distal radius fracture. This finding indicates the need for increased focus on this high-risk group.

Five-year refracture rates of a province-wide fracture liaison service

We examined the 5-year refracture rate of 6543 patients and found an overall rate of 9.7%. Adjusted analysis showed that presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of a higher refracture risk; while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower refracture risk.

INTRODUCTION

To examine refractures among patients screened in a province-wide fracture liaison service (FLS).

METHODS

We assessed the 5-year refracture rate of fragility fracture patients aged 50+ who were screened at 37 FLS fracture clinics in Ontario, Canada. Refracture was defined as a new hip, pelvis, spine, distal radius, or proximal humerus fracture. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, sex, and index fracture type were used to examine refracture rates.

RESULTS

The 5-year refracture rate of 6543 patients was 9.7%. Those presenting with multiple fractures at baseline (i.e., two or more fractures occurring simultaneously) had the highest refracture rate of 19.6%. As compared to the 50-65 age group, refracture risk increased monotonically with age group (66-70 years: HR = 1.3, CI 95%, 1.0-1.7; 71-80 years: HR = 1.7, CI 1.4-2.1; 81+ years: HR = 3.0, CI 2.4-3.7). Relative to distal radius, presenting with multiple fractures at screening was associated with a higher risk of refracture (HR = 2.3 CI 1.6-3.1), while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower risk of refracture (HR = 0.7 CI 0.6-0.9). Sex was not a statistically significant predictor of refracture risk in this cohort (HR = 1.2, CI 1.0-1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

One in ten patients in our cohort refractured within 5 years after baseline. Presenting with multiple fractures was an indicator of a higher refracture risk, while presenting with an ankle fracture was associated with a lower refracture risk. A more targeted FLS approach may be appropriate for patients at a higher refracture risk.

Risk of Recurrent Fracture: A Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine if children who sustain a fracture in childhood had an increased rate of fracture later in childhood or early adulthood. The a priori null hypothesis was that children who sustained a fracture would not have an increased rate of future fractures compared with children who did not sustain a fracture when controlling for important covariates.

METHODS

This is a population-based retrospective cohort study using health care databases in Ontario. Approximately 2.5 million healthy children aged 0 to 15 years living in Ontario, Canada between April 1, 2003, and March 31, 2004, were included and followed for 7 years. The exposure was occurrence of any fracture during a 1-year baseline period. The main outcome was any fractures during a 7-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 43 154 children suffered a fracture during the baseline year (17.5 fractures per 1000 child years). Children with a baseline fracture had a 60% higher rate of fracture (incidence rate ratio: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.46-1.75; P < .0001) during the follow-up period after adjustment for sex, rurality, history of previous fracture, and the occurrence of other injuries (head and soft-tissue).

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of a fracture during childhood was associated with an increased rate of future fractures compared with children who did not suffer a fracture. Attempting to improve childhood bone health by targeting children who present to a fracture clinic with multiple fracture risk factors may be a useful strategy for secondary prevention of fractures and may have beneficial effects on long-term bone health.

The Role of Sex, Gender, Health Factors, and Job Context in Workplace Accommodation Use Among Men and Women with Arthritis

Background

With the aging of populations in many countries, workers are expected to remain employed longer but may struggle with the onset of common, chronic conditions like arthritis. To date, few studies have examined workplace policies and practices that could help accommodate individuals with arthritis, and fewer still have used a sex and gender-based approach to explore similarities and differences between women and men.

Objectives

This study compared the health and work contexts of workers aged ≥50 years to better understand similarities and differences between women and men in accommodation availability, need, use, and unmet needs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of men and women with osteoarthritis (OA), inflammatory arthritis (IA), or both OA and IA was administered online or by telephone and assessed demographics (e.g. age, education), health (e.g. pain, fatigue, workplace activity limitations), work context factors (e.g. job sector, full/part-time work, job control), and workplace accommodations (e.g. health benefits, flexible hours, special equipment/adaptations, modified duties). Sex and gender-based analyses examined similarities and differences between men and women and included descriptive statistics, multivariable multinomial analyses, and nested regression analyses.

Results

There was a 58.9% response rate and final sample of 463 participants (women, n = 266; men, n = 197; OA = 59.0%; IA/both IA and OA = 23.7%; unsure = 17.3%). Women and men were significantly different in a number of health (e.g. fatigue, health variability, workplace activity limitations) and work context factors (e.g. job sector, part-time work, job stress). However, in other respects, they were similar (e.g. pain, job involving physical demands, size of organization, shift work, union membership, job control). There were no differences between men and women in the availability or use of workplace accommodations. However, women reported significantly more accommodation needs and had greater unmet needs. Multivariable multinomial analyses found male/female as a binary variable did not explain differences in accommodation need, use, and unmet need. Nested analyses highlighted that differences in health variables explained male/female differences in accommodation need, while work context differences explained male/female differences in whether needs were met.

Conclusions

The findings highlight that women and men draw on a range of existing accommodation policies and practices to help manage their arthritis and that most have their accommodation needs met. Decomposing the context within which men and women with arthritis work suggests that women may face health and work context challenges that differ from men and that are related to greater accommodation needs and unmet need. This highlights potential vulnerabilities in the work of women that need to be addressed.

Financial Management Activity Process: Qualitative inquiry of adults with acquired brain injury

Background.

Little is known about the financial management occupations of people living with brain injury, despite the importance of these to adult autonomy.

Purpose.

This work aims to develop a conceptual framework for financial management after adulthood acquired brain injury.

Method.

This qualitative study used grounded theory methods. Data included semistructured interviews of 10 adults living with brain injury and two close others who assist with financial management occupations. Analysis included initial and focused coding, memo writing, constant comparison, theoretical sampling of questions, and member checking.

Findings.

The Financial Management Activity Process conceptual framework describes a complex action process. This includes accounting for factors influencing financial choices and actions, and identifying and using a trusted personalized process, including using financial management strategies aligned with the constraints of factors.

Implications.

This conceptual framework may be useful to assessment and intervention development. It highlights the between-person and between-activity variability in financial management processes and strategy use.

The OMERACT Stepwise Approach to Select and Develop Imaging Outcome Measurement Instruments: The Musculoskeletal Ultrasound Example

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) stepwise approach to select and develop an imaging instrument with musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) as an example.

Methods.

The OMERACT US Working Group (WG) developed a 4-step process to select instruments based on imaging. Step 1 applies the OMERACT Framework Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) to existing US outcome measurement instruments for a specific indication. This step requires a literature review focused on the truth, discrimination, and feasibility aspects of the instrument for the target pathology. When the evidence is completely unsatisfactory, Step 2 is a consensus process to define the US characteristics of the target pathology including one or more so-called “elementary lesions”. Step 3 applies the agreed definitions to the image, evaluates their reliability, develops a severity grading of the lesion(s) at a given anatomical site, and evaluates the effect of the acquisition technique on feasibility and lesion(s) detection. Step 4 applies and assesses the definition(s) and scoring system(s) in cross-sectional studies and multicenter trials. The imaging instrument is now ready to pass a final OFISA check.

Results.

With this process in place, the US WG now has 18 subgroups developing US instruments in 10 different diseases. Half of them have passed Step 3, and the groups for enthesitis (spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis), synovitis, and tenosynovitis (rheumatoid arthritis) have finished Step 4.

Conclusion.

The US WG approach to select and develop outcome measurement instruments based on imaging has been repeatedly and successfully applied in US, but is generic for imaging and fits with OMERACT Filter 2.1.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies

OBJECTIVE

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1).

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts.

RESULTS

The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms.

CONCLUSION

We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

Core Domain Set Selection According to OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective.

To describe the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 methodology for core domain set selection.

Methods.

The “OMERACT Way for Core Domain Set selection” framework consists of 3 stages: first, generating candidate domains through literature reviews and qualitative work, then a process of consensus to obtain agreement from those involved, and finally formal voting on the OMERACT Onion. The OMERACT Onion describes the placement of domains in layers/circles: mandatory in all trials/mandatory in specific circumstances (inner circle); important but optional (middle circle); or research agenda (outer circle). Five OMERACT working groups presented their core domain sets for endorsement by the OMERACT community. Tools including a workbook and whiteboard video were created to assist the process. The methods workshop at OMERACT 2018 introduced participants to this framework.

Results.

The 5 OMERACT working groups achieved consensus on their proposed core domain sets. After the Methodology Workshop training exercise at OMERACT 2018, over 90% of participants voted that they were confident that they understood the process of core domain set selection.

Conclusion.

The methods described in this paper were successfully used by the 5 working groups voting on domains at the OMERACT 2018 meeting, demonstrating the feasibility of the process. In addition, participants at OMERACT 2018 expressed increased confidence and understanding of the core domain set selection process after the training exercise. This methodology will continue to evolve, and we will use innovative technology such as whiteboard videos as a key part of our dissemination and implementation strategy for new methods.

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders

OBJECTIVE

To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.

METHODS

At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.

RESULTS

The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.

CONCLUSION

OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology

Objective.

Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigor and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection.

Methods.

We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer.” Truth, discrimination, and feasibility are the 3 original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed 4 signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties table that summarizes the 7 measurement properties: truth (domain match, construct validity), discrimination [test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning], and feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on 2 instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group.

Results.

The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The 2 instruments were presented, and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes.

Conclusion.

Instrument selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented.

Identifying Provisional Generic Contextual Factor Domains for Clinical Trials in Rheumatology: Results from an OMERACT Initiative

Objective.

The Contextual Factors Working Group aims to provide guidance on addressing contextual factors in rheumatology trials within OMERACT.

Methods.

During the Special Interest Group session at OMERACT 2018, preliminary results were presented from a case scenario survey and semistructured interviews, including contextual factors mentioned in these. A group-based exercise sought to identify and rank important generic contextual factors.

Results.

A total of 79 candidate factors were listed. Across the 3 groups, gender/sex, comorbidities, and the healthcare system were ranked as most important.

Conclusion.

The identified important contextual factor domains may be considered a provisional list pending further research.

Addressing Challenges in Developing a Core Domain Set in Adherence Interventions in Rheumatology: A Report from the OMERACT-Adherence Group

Objective.

The OMERACT-Adherence meeting was convened to discuss the conceptual and methodological challenges in developing a core domain set (Adherence-CDS) for trials of interventions for medication adherence in rheumatology.

Methods.

Forty participants from nine countries participated.

Results.

Four ideas emerged: for adherence trials, the Adherence-CDS could include adherence and the condition-specific CDS; many factors affect adherence and are intervention targets, contextual factors, or outcome domains; adherence is a critical factor in drug trials; and standardized adherence measures are needed.

Conclusion.

Despite the challenges, the meeting clarified an approach to developing an Adherence-CDS that complements existing OMERACT work and methodology.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Osteoporosis Treatment Associated with Improved Outcomes: An Observational Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To identify and address patient-reported barriers in osteoporosis care after a fracture.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort of fragility fracture patients over 50 years of age was seen in a provincewide fracture liaison service. Followup interviews were done at 6 months for osteoporosis care indicators. Univariate statistics were used to describe baseline characteristics, osteoporosis-related outcomes, and reasons cited for not achieving them. Two phases of this program were compared (Phase I: education and communication, and Phase II: risk assessment education and communication). Phase II was further divided into those who fully participated and those who declined.

RESULTS

Phase I (n = 3997) had lower testing and treatment rates than Phase II (n = 1363). Rates were highest in those confirmed as having participated in Phase II (n = 569). Phase II nonparticipants (n = 794) had results as in Phase I. In Phase I, the main patient-reported barriers for not visiting their physician or not having a bone mineral density (BMD) test were patient- and physician-oriented (e.g., being instructed by their physician to not have the BMD test). In Phase II, BMD testing was part of the program, thus the main barriers were around treatment choices. Phase II eligible nonparticipants experienced many of the same barriers as Phase I patients, with lower BMD testing rates (54.9% and 65.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Evaluating and addressing barriers to guideline implementation reduced those barriers and was associated with higher downstream treatment rates. Monitoring barriers in a program like this provides useful insights for program changes and research interventions.

Are There Differences in Workplace Accommodation Needs, Use and Unmet Needs Among Older Workers With Arthritis, Diabetes and No Chronic Conditions? Examining the Role of Health and Work Context

The aging of workforces combined with the prevalence of age-related chronic diseases has generated interest in whether large numbers of older workers will need workplace accommodations. This research applied work functioning theory to examine accommodation availability, need and use in workers with arthritis, diabetes, or no chronic disabling diseases; factors associated with accommodation needs; and the relationship of accommodation needs met, unmet or exceeded to job outcomes. Participants were aged 50-67 years, employed, and had arthritis (n = 631), diabetes (n = 286), both arthritis/diabetes (n = 111) or no chronic disabling conditions (healthy controls n = 538). They were recruited from a national panel of 80,000 individuals and a cross-sectional survey was administered online or by telephone. Questionnaires assessed demographics, health, work context, workplace accommodations, and job outcomes. Chi-square analyses, analyses of variance, and regression analyses compared groups. Respondents were similar in many demographic and work context factors. As expected, workers with arthritis and/or diabetes often reported poorer health and employment outcomes. Yet, there were few differences across health conditions in need for or use of accommodations with most participants reporting accommodations needs met. In keeping with work functioning theory, unmet accommodation needs were largely related to work context, not health. Workers whose accommodation needs were exceeded reported better job outcomes than those with accommodation needs met. Findings highlight both work context and health in understanding workplace accommodations and suggest that many older workers can meet accommodation needs with existing workplace practices. However, additional research aimed at workplace support and the timing of accommodation use is needed.

Presurgery osteoarthritis severity over 10 years in 2 Ontario prospective total knee replacement cohorts: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that total knee replacement is being performed in people with less-severe osteoarthritis. We aimed to determine whether there were differences in the presurgery profile, symptoms and disability of 2 cohorts who underwent total knee replacement over a 10-year period.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-85 years undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis at 1 of 4 sites in Toronto and Strathroy, Ontario, were recruited in a cohort study during 2006-2008 (cohort 1) and 2012-2015 (cohort 2). Patients undergoing unicompartmental or revision arthroplasty were excluded. Demographic and health (body mass index [BMI], comorbidity) variables and osteoarthritis severity, as assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the disability component of the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI-D), were collected before surgery. We calculated proportions, means and standard deviations with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all data. We constructed density plots by tertile score for the WOMAC pain and physical function subscales and the LLFDI-D limitation scale.

RESULTS

There were 494 patients in cohort 1 and 251 patients in cohort 2. There were no differences in age, sex, education, living status, BMI, comorbidity, pain severity or disability between the cohorts based on overlapping 95% CIs and the density plots. More patients in cohort 1 than in cohort 2 were single (176 [35.6%], 95% CI 32.5%-41.1% v. 63 [25.1%], 95% CI 20.3%-31.0%). Patients in cohort 2 reported less limitation in higher-demand activities than did those in cohort 1 (mean score on LLFDI-D 62.3 [95% CI 60.7-63.9] v. 59.2 [95% CI 58.2-60.2]).

INTERPRETATION

The patient profile and reported osteoarthritis severity were similar in 2 cohorts that had total knee replacement over a 10-year period. This suggests that increasing total knee replacement volumes over this period likely were not driven by these factors.

Systematic Review of Measurement Property Evidence for 8 Financial Management Instruments in Populations With Acquired Cognitive Impairment

OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise the measurement property evidence (ie, psychometric) for 8 observation-based financial management assessment instruments.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched in May 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Two reviewers used an independent decision-agreement process to select studies of measurement property evidence relevant to populations with adulthood acquired cognitive impairment, appraise the quality of the evidence, and extract data. Twenty-one articles were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

This review used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments review guidelines and 4-point tool to appraise evidence. After appraising the methodologic quality, the adequacy of results and volume of evidence per instrument were synthesized. Measurement property evidence with high risk of bias was excluded from the synthesis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The volume of measurement property evidence per instrument is low; most instruments had 1 to 3 included studies. Many included studies had poor methodologic quality per measurement property evidence area examined. Six of the 8 instruments reviewed had supporting construct validity/hypothesis-testing evidence of fair methodologic quality. There is a dearth of acceptable quality content validity, reliability, and responsiveness evidence for all 8 instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation practitioners assess financial management functions in adults with acquired cognitive impairments. However, there is limited published evidence to support using any of the reviewed instruments. Practitioners should exercise caution when interpreting the results of these instruments. This review highlights the importance of appraising the quality of measurement property evidence before examining the adequacy of the results and synthesizing the evidence.

A user's survey of the clinical application and content validity of the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure

STUDY DESIGN

Survey.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To elicit feedback on the clinical use and content validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure from frontline users of the instrument.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to registered DASH users and inquired about how the DASH was being used and to identify the informational value of items of the DASH (content validity).

RESULTS

About 172 completed the survey. One or both of the DASH and/or QuickDASH were consistently (89.5%) being used. About 90% were using it in adults (21-65 years), and at least 70% were using it across the entire extremity, and to a lesser extent, 10% reported using it in isolated neck injuries. Most respondents (66.9%-75.8%) were using the DASH in musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders, with some applying it for other more unique or non-MSK conditions (2.5%-16.6%). All but 1 of the 30 DASH items had at least 10% endorsement as being informative, and 4 items were identified as being problematic by greater than 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH is being used as intended (whole extremity and MSK conditions), and in addition, it is being used in different body regions and diverse conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Not applicable (descriptive survey).

Improvements in osteoporosis testing and care are found following the wide scale implementation of the Ontario Fracture Clinic Screening Program: An interrupted time series analysis

We evaluated a system-wide impact of a health intervention to improve treatment of osteoporosis after a fragility fracture. The intervention consisted of assigning a screening coordinator to selected fracture clinics to identify, educate, and follow up with fragility fracture patients and inform their physicians of the need to evaluate bone health. Thirty-seven hospitals in the province of Ontario (Canada) were assigned a screening coordinator. Twenty-three similar hospitals were control sites. All hospitals had orthopedic services and handled moderate-to-higher volumes of fracture patients. Administrative health data were used to evaluate the impact of the intervention.Fragility fracture patients (≥50 years; hip, humerus, forearm, spine, or pelvis fracture) were identified from administrative health records. Cases were fractures treated at 1 of the 37 hospitals assigned a coordinator. Controls were the same types of fractures at the control sites. Data were assembled for 20 quarters before and 10 quarters after the implementation (from January 2002 to March 2010). To test for a shift in trends, we employed an interrupted time series analysis-a study design used to evaluate the longitudinal effects of interventions, through regression modelling. The primary outcome measure was bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Osteoporosis medication initiation and persistence rates were secondary outcomes in a subset of patients ≥66 years of age.A total of 147,071 patients were used in the analysis. BMD testing rates increased from 17.0% pre-intervention to 20.9% post-intervention at intervention sites (P < .01) compared with no change at control sites (14.9% and 14.9%, P = .33). Medication initiation improved significantly at intervention sites (21.6-23.97%; P = .02) but not at control sites (17.5-18.5%; P = .27). Persistence with bisphosphonates decreased at all sites, from 59.9% to 56.4% at intervention sites (P = .02) and more so from 62.3% to 54.2% at control sites (P < .01) using 50% proportion of days covered (PDC 50).Significant improvements in BMD testing and treatment initiation were observed after the initiation of a coordinator-based screening program to improve osteoporosis management following fragility fracture.

Equal treatment: no evidence of gender inequity in osteoporosis management in a coordinator-based fragility fracture screening program

We evaluated gender imbalance in osteoporosis management in a provincial coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. This establishes that a systemic approach with interventions for all fragility fracture patients can eliminate the gender inequity that is often observed.

INRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an Ontario-based fracture prevention program for its ability to address the well-documented gender imbalance in osteoporosis (OP) management, by incorporating its integrated fracture risk assessments within a needs-based evaluation of equity.

METHODS

Fragility fracture patients (≥ 50 years) who were treatment naïve at screening and completed follow-up within 6 months of screening were studied. Patients who underwent bone mineral density (BMD) testing done in the year prior to their current fracture were excluded. All participants had BMD testing conducted through the Ontario OP Strategy Fracture Screening and Prevention program, thus providing us with fracture risk assessment data. Our primary study outcome was treatment initiation at follow-up within 6 months of screening. Gender differences were compared using Fisher's exact test, at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

After adjusting for subsequent fracture risk, study participants did not show a statistically significant gender difference in pharmacotherapy initiation at follow-up (p > 0.05). 68.4% of women and 66.2% of men at high risk were treated within 6 months of screening.

CONCLUSION

Needs-based analyses show no difference by gender in treatment of high-risk fragility fracture patients. An intensive coordinator-based fracture prevention model adopted in Ontario, Canada was not associated with gender inequity in OP treatment of fragility fracture patients after fracture risk adjustment.

Rehabilitation, not injury or treatment details, dominate proximal humeral fracture patient concerns: a thematic analysis

Background, objectives, and aims: To provide treatment using a patient-centered care model, the provider must understand the needs and wants of the patient and ensure the patient has access to appropriate and necessary health information. The objective of this study was to determine what information is most desired by proximal humeral fracture patients following their injury.Methods: This qualitative study enrolled patients aged 60 years or older presenting with a proximal humeral fracture. Semi-structured interviews were conducted within one-month of injury and at 6-months post-injury. The interviews were transcribed, coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.Results: Four themes (biomedical information, recovery, engagement opportunities and support available) emerged from the coded data. Within one-month post-injury, the most commonly identified themes were rehabilitation and support available. Six-months after the injury, the most commonly identified theme remained rehabilitation, while the second most frequently identified theme shifted to engagement opportunities. The biomedical information theme emerged infrequently at both interviews. Conclusions: Patient-centered care models for proximal humeral fracture patients could be improved by adapting to dynamic information concerns. While the effect of the injury on the patient’s rehabilitation remained the leading concern for the duration of the study period, secondary concerns did change over time. Providing germane information to patients at timely intervals supports patient-centered care, patient engagement and ultimately may improve patient care.

Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets

OBJECTIVE

While there has been substantial progress in the development of core outcomes sets, the degree to which these are used by researchers is variable. We convened a special workshop on knowledge translation at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 with 2 main goals. The first focused on the development of a formal knowledge translation framework and the second on promoting uptake of recommended core outcome domain and instrument sets.

METHODS

We invited all 189 OMERACT 2016 attendees to the workshop; 86 attended, representing patient research partners (n = 15), healthcare providers/clinician researchers (n = 52), industry (n = 4), regulatory agencies (n = 4), and OMERACT fellows (n = 11). Participants were given an introduction to knowledge translation and were asked to propose and discuss recommendations for the OMERACT community to (1) strengthen stakeholder involvement in the core outcome instrument set development process, and (2) promote uptake of core outcome sets with a specific focus on the potential role of post-regulatory decision makers.

RESULTS

We developed the novel "OMERACT integrated knowledge translation" framework, which formalizes OMERACT's knowledge translation strategies. We produced strategies to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the process of core outcome set development and created a list of creative and innovative ways to promote the uptake of OMERACT's core outcome sets.

CONCLUSION

The guidance provided in this paper is preliminary and is based on the views of the participants. Future work will engage OMERACT groups, "post-regulatory decision makers," and a broad range of different stakeholders to identify and evaluate the most useful methods and processes, and to revise guidance accordingly.

Patients' Perspectives on Outcomes of Care After Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Much effort has been expended to understand what care experiences patients value in the emergency department (ED), yet little is known about which outcomes patients value after ED care. Our goal is to define outcomes of ED care that are valued by patients discharged from the ED, with the goal of informing the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for ED care.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with patients recruited during their care at 1 of 2 EDs and interviewed in either English or French 1 to 9 days after their visit. Patients who were hospitalized were excluded. Interviews focused on perceived outcomes of care since the ED visit and expectations of care before the ED visit. We identified themes with standard descriptive content analysis techniques and a modified version of the constant comparative method, drawing on grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

We interviewed 46 patients in English (n=38) or French (n=8). Participants with diverse reasons for seeking care appeared to value common outcomes from ED care that centered around 4 themes: understanding the cause and expected trajectory of their symptoms; reassurance; symptom relief; and having a plan to manage their symptoms, resolve their issue, or pursue further medical care. These themes were also reflected in the expectations participants recalled having when they decided to seek care in the ED.

CONCLUSION

The 4 outcomes defined constitute areas for improvement and will inform the development of an ED patient-reported outcome questionnaire. Consideration should be given to measuring patient-reported outcomes separately from patient experience.

An OMERACT Initiative Toward Consensus to Identify and Characterize Candidate Contextual Factors: Report from the Contextual Factors Working Group

Objective.

The importance of contextual factors (CF) for appropriate patient-specific care is widely acknowledged. However, evidence in clinical trials on how CF influence outcomes remains sparse. The 2014 Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook introduced the role of CF in outcome assessment and defined them as “potential confounders and/or effect modifiers of outcomes in randomized controlled trials.” Subsequently, the CF Methods Group (CFMG) was formed to develop guidance on how to address CF in clinical trials.

Methods.

First, the CFMG conducted an e-mail survey of OMERACT working groups (WG) to analyze how they had addressed CF in outcome measurement so far. The results facilitated an informed discussion at the OMERACT 2016 CFMG Special Interest Group (SIG) session, with the aim of gaining preliminary consensus regarding an operational definition of CF and to make a first selection of potentially relevant CF.

Results.

The survey revealed that the WG had mostly used the OMERACT Handbook and/or the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) definition. However, significant heterogeneity was found in the methods used to identify, refine, and categorize CF candidates. The SIG participants agreed on using the ICF as a framework along with the OMERACT Handbook definition. A list with 28 variables was collected including person-related factors and physical and social environments. Recommendations from the SIG guided the CFMG to formulate 3 preliminary projects on how to identify and analyze CF.

Conclusion.

New methods are urgently needed to assist researchers to identify and characterize CF that significantly influence the interpretation of results in clinical trials. The CFMG defined first steps to develop further guidance.

Addition of a fracture risk assessment to a coordinator's role improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening in a fragility fracture screening program

We evaluated the impact of a more intensive version of an existing post-fracture coordinator-based fracture prevention program and found that the addition of a full-risk assessment improved treatment rates. These findings provide additional support for more intensive programs aimed at reducing the risk of re-fractures.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based guidelines support coordinator-based programs to improve post-fracture osteoporosis guideline uptake, with more intensive programs including bone mineral density (BMD) testing and/or treatment being associated with better patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a more intensive version (BMD "fast track") of an existing provincial coordinator-based program.

METHODS

We compared two versions of the program that screened treatment naïve fragility fracture patients (>50 years). Cases came from the BMD fast track program that included full fracture risk assessment and communication of relevant guidelines to the primary care provider (PCP). Matched controls were selected from the usual care program matching according to age, sex, fracture type, and date. Two matching techniques were used: traditional (hard) matching (TM) and propensity score matching (PS). The outcomes were treatment initiation with bone sparing medication, BMD testing rate, and the rate of returning to discuss the test results with a PCP.

RESULTS

The program improvements led to a significant improvement in treatment initiation within 6 months from 16 % (controls based on PS) or 21 % (controls based on TM) to 32 % (cases). Ninety percent of patients in the BMD fast track program returned to their PCP to discuss bone health in the cases versus 60 % of the controls (for TM and PS). BMD testing occurred in 96 % of cases compared to the 66 (TM) or 65 % (PS) of the matched controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a full-risk assessment to a coordinator-based program significantly improved treatment rates within 6 months of screening.

Telemedicine delivery of patient education in remote Ontario communities: feasibility of an Advanced Clinician Practitioner in Arthritis Care (ACPAC)-led inflammatory arthritis education program

Objective

Telemedicine-based approaches to health care service delivery improve access to care. It was recognized that adults with inflammatory arthritis (IA) living in remote areas had limited access to patient education and could benefit from the 1-day Prescription for Education (RxEd) program. The program was delivered by extended role practitioners with advanced training in arthritis care. Normally offered at one urban center, RxEd was adapted for videoconference delivery through two educator development workshops that addressed telemedicine and adult education best practices. This study explores the feasibility of and participant satisfaction with telemedicine delivery of the RxEd program in remote communities.

Materials and methods

Participants included adults with IA attending the RxEd program at one of six rural sites. They completed post-course program evaluations and follow-up interviews. Educators provided post-course feedback to identify program improvements that were later implemented.

Results

In total, 123 people (36 in-person and 87 remote, across 6 sites) participated, attending one of three RxEd sessions. Remote participants were satisfied with the quality of the video-conference (% agree/strongly agree): could hear the presenter (92.9%) and discussion between sites (82.4%); could see who was speaking at other remote sites (85.7%); could see the slides (95.3%); and interaction between sites adequately facilitated (94.0%). Educator and participant feedback were consistent. Suggested improvements included: use of two screens (speaker and slides); frontal camera angles; equal interaction with remote sites; and slide modifications to improve the readability on screen. Interview data included similar constructive feedback but highlighted the educational and social benefits of the program, which participants noted would have been inaccessible if not offered via telemedicine.

Conclusion

Study findings confirm the feasibility of delivering the RxEd program to remote communities by using telemedicine. Future research with a focus on the sustainability of this and other models of technology-supported patient education for adults with IA across Ontario is warranted.

Health Equity Considerations for Developing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: A Report from the OMERACT Equity Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

Despite advances integrating patient-centered outcomes into rheumatologic studies, concerns remain regarding their representativeness across diverse patient groups and how this affects equity. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Working Group aims to determine whether and how to address equity issues within the core outcome sets of domains and instruments.

METHODS

We surveyed current and previous OMERACT meeting attendees and members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group regarding whether to address equity issues within the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Core Outcome Sets and how to assess the appropriateness of domains, instruments, and measurement properties among diverse patients. At OMERACT 2016, results of the survey and a narrative review of differential psychosocial effects of rheumatoid arthritis (i.e., on men) were presented to stimulate discussion and develop a research agenda.

RESULTS

We proposed 6 moments for which an equity lens could be added to the development, selection, or testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM): (1) recruitment, (2) domain selection, (3) feasibility in diverse settings, (4) instrument validity, (5) thresholds of meaning, and (6) consideration of statistical power of subgroup analyses for outcome reporting.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to (1) conduct a systematic review to assess how equity and population characteristics have been considered in PROM development and whether these differences influence the ranking of importance of outcome domains or a patient's response to questionnaire items, and (2) conduct the same survey described above with patients representing groups experiencing health inequities.

The impact of fragility fractures on work and characteristics associated with time to return to work

We examined the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of employed patients. The majority successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore the fast recovery rates of working fragility fracture patients.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of fragility fractures on the work outcomes of patients who were employed at the time of their fracture.

METHODS

A self-report anonymous survey was mailed to fragility fracture patients over 50 who were screened as part of the quality assurance programs of fracture clinics across 35 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Measures of return to work (RTW), at-work productivity loss (Work Limitations Questionnaire), and sociodemographic, fracture-related, and job characteristics were included in the survey. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative proportion of patients still off work were computed. Factors associated with RTW time following a fragility fracture were examined using Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Of 275 participants, 242 (88 %) returned to work. Of these, the median RTW time was 20.5 days. About 86 % returned to the same job, duties, and hours as before their injury. Among full-time workers, the median number of lost hours due to presenteeism was 2.9 h (Q1-Q3 0.4-8.1 h). The median cost of presenteeism was $75.30 based on the month prior to survey completion. In multivariable analyses, female gender, needing surgery, and medium/heavy work requirements were associated with longer RTW time. Earlier RTW time was associated with elbow fracture and feeling completely better at time of survey completion.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of fragility fracture patients successfully returned to their previous jobs in a short amount of time, and productivity loss at work was low. Our findings underscore their fast recovery rates and give reason for optimism regarding the resilience of this population.

Symptom Resolution and Patient-Perceived Recovery Following Ankle Arthroplasty and Arthrodesis

BACKGROUND

Patients' perception of outcomes is not always defined by the absence of limitations/symptoms (resolution), but can also be characterized by behavioral adaptation and cognitive coping arising in cases with residual deficits. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) are designed to measure levels of function or symptoms, largely missing whether patients are coping with ongoing limitations. This study aimed to broaden the conventional definition of a "satisfactory" outcome following ankle reconstruction by comparing patient-reported outcomes of patients with and without residual symptoms and limitations.

METHODS

The study consisted of a cross-sectional survey of ankle arthroplasty (n = 85) and arthrodesis (n = 15) patients. Outcome measures included the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, Short Form-12, and EuroQol-5 Dimension. Patients also completed measures of pain (0-10), stiffness (0-10), satisfaction (0-3), and ability to complete activities of daily living (ADL) (0-6). Based on a self-reported question regarding recovery and coping, patients were categorized as "Recovered-Resolved" (better with no symptoms or residual effects), "Recovered, not Resolved" (RNR, better with residual effects), or "Not Recovered" (not better). Recovery groups were compared across measures.

RESULTS

Only 15% of patients were categorized Recovered-Resolved. Most were RNR (69%), leaving 14% Not Resolved. Recovered-Resolved experienced lower rates of pain (1.4 ± 2.3), stiffness (1.1 ± 2.6), and difficulty performing ADLs (0.9 ± 1.2). Overall, outcome measure scores were high (ie, better health) for Recovered-Resolved patients, midrange for RNR patients, and low for Not Recovered patients, thus confirming predefined hypotheses. Recovered-Resolved and RNR patients had similarly high satisfaction summary scores (3.0 ± 0.0 vs 2.6 ± 0.6).

CONCLUSION

Most patients reported positive outcomes, but few (15%) experienced resolution of all symptoms and limitations. Current PROs focus on achieving low levels of symptoms and limitations, but miss an important achievement when patients are brought to a level of residual deficits with which they can cope. Patients' perceptions of satisfactory outcomes were not predicated on the resolution of all limitations; thus, the conventional definition of "satisfactory" outcomes should be expanded accordingly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective cohort study.

The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) Outcome Measure: What do we know about it now?

Outcome measurement is an essential component for defining the effectiveness of clinicians’ practice (Reiman 1988) and standardised measures make that job more consistent, comparable and valid (Cole et al 1994). Hand therapists have long recognised the need for the standardisation of outcome measures, particularly for performance-based measures such as strength testing (Mathiowetz et al 1985, Woody et al 1988) or joint motion. More recently there has been an increased interest in outcome measures that capture the patient's perspective of their status, and that are standardised. The DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) is a standardised outcome measure that could be used for this purpose (Hudak et al 1996, McConnell et al 1999). The DASH reflects the impact of a disorder in terms of physical function and symptoms, which are the two main reasons patients seek care for a disorder of the musculoskeletal system. The DASH is becoming widely used by clinicians and researchers (McConnell et al 1999). It is now important to revisit what we know about how well the DASH is able to measure what it purports to measure.

The purpose of this paper is to review the research that has been done to date on the DASH outcome measure, and to describe the implications of this for future research and for clinical practice.