Search

Functional ability and participation in life situations are compromised in many primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) patients. This study aimed to identify the key barriers and priorities to participation in daily living activities, in order to develop potential future interventions. Group concept mapping, a semiquantitative, mixed‐methods approach was used to identify and structure ideas from UKprimary SSpatients, adult household members living with a primary SSpatient, and health care professionals. Brainstorming generated ideas, which were summarized into a final set of statements. Participants individually arranged these statements into themes and rated each statement for importance. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied to sorted and rated data to produce visual representations of the ideas (concept maps), enabling identification of agreed priority areas for interventions. A total of 121 patients, 43 adult household members, and 67 health care professionals took part. In sum, 463 ideas were distilled down to 94 statements. These statements were grouped into 7 clusters: Patient Empowerment, Symptoms, Wellbeing, Access and Coordination of Health Care, Knowledge and Support, Public Awareness and Support, and Friends and Family. Patient Empowerment and Symptoms were rated as priority conceptual themes. Important statements within priority clusters indicate patients should be taken seriously and supported to self‐manage symptoms of oral and ocular dryness, fatigue, pain, and poor sleep. Our data highlighted the fact that in addition to managing primary SSsymptoms, interventions aiming to improve patient empowerment, general wellbeing, access to health care, patient education, and social support are important to facilitate improved participation in daily living activities.

Introduction Primary Sjögren’s syndrome is the third most common systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, following rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, and results in dryness, fatigue, discomfort and sleep disturbances. Sleep is relatively unexplored in primary Sjögren’s syndrome. We investigated the experiences of sleep disturbances from the viewpoint of primary Sjögren’s syndrome patients and their partners and explored the acceptability of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia.Method We used focus groups to collect qualitative data from 10 patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome and three partners of patients. The data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.Results Five themes emerged from the data: (a) Experience of sleep disturbances; (b) variation and inconsistency in sleep disturbances; (c) the domino effect of primary Sjögren’s syndrome symptoms; (d) strategies to manage sleep; (e) acceptability of evidence-based techniques. Sleep disturbances were problematic for all patients, but specific disturbances varied between participants. These included prolonged sleep onset time and frequent night awakenings and were aggravated by pain and discomfort. Patients deployed a range of strategies to try and self-manage. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia was seen as an acceptable intervention, as long as a rationale for its use is given and it is tailored for primary Sjögren’s syndrome.Conclusion Primary Sjögren’s syndrome patients described a range of sleep disturbances. Applying tailored, evidence-based sleep therapy interventions may improve sleep, severity of other primary Sjögren’s syndrome symptoms and functional ability.

Interprofessional communication about inflammatory and non-inflammatory musculoskeletal conditions is an important component of assessment and management in paediatric rheumatology. Chronic pain is a feature of some of these conditions which likely influences the extent and type of communication about pain. Research investigating interprofessional communication about paediatric pain is limited but has found that communication is inclusive of the biopsychosocial context of children/adolescents as well as their families. The aim of this ethnographic study was to explore interprofessional communication about children and adolescents with chronic musculoskeletal pain in paediatric rheumatology. We observed forty-five healthcare professionals recruited from three UK paediatric rheumatology teams during thirty multi-disciplinary team meetings. Contemporaneous field notes created during observations were analysed using grounded theory procedures. Core processes identified in interprofessional communication involved describing, making sense of, and managing children/adolescents with pain and their families. Topic areas discussed within these core processes included healthcare professional perceptions about children’s and parents’ personality characteristics, as well as healthcare professionals’ familiarity with families. Underlying diagnoses and possible attributions of pain aetiology were also discussed. Interprofessional narratives included consideration of the potential anxieties and uncertainties about pain within families. Healthcare professionals communicated about strategies for managing expectations about pain. These findings characterise the nuances in interprofessional communication about pain and can be used to inform future work aimed at understanding and optimising the impact of interprofessional communication on clinical decisions and pain outcomes.

To explore how young people (ages 16–25 years) with inflammatory arthritis evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment, particularly treatment with biologic therapies. This qualitative study involved in‐depth interviews (n = 44) with young people, trusted others (e.g., parents), and health professionals; audio‐recordings (n = 4) of biologic therapy–related consultations; and focus groups (n = 4). Analysis used techniques from grounded theory (open and focused coding, constant comparison, memoing, and mapping). Young people aspired to live what they perceived as a “normal” life. They saw treatment as presenting both an opportunity for and a threat to achieving this. Treatment changes were therefore subject to complex and ongoing evaluation, covering administration, associated restrictions, anticipated effects, and side effects. Information sources included expert opinion (of professionals and other patients) and personal experience. Previous treatments provided important reference points. Faced with uncertain outcomes, young people made provisional decisions. Both trusted others and health professionals expressed concern that young people were too focused on short‐term outcomes. Young people value treatment that helps them to live a “normal” life. There is more to this than controlling disease. The emotional, social, and vocational consequences of treatment can be profound and lasting: opportunities to discuss the effects of treatment should be provided early and regularly. While making every effort to ensure understanding of the long‐term clinical consequences of taking or not taking medication, the wider impact of treatment should not be dismissed. Only through understanding young people's values, preferences, and concerns can a sustainable balance between disease control and treatment burden be achieved.

As services are commissioned based on effectiveness, occupational therapists are under pressure to demonstrate the efficacy of their interventions. Occupational therapists also need to know that the interventions they are providing are effective. Robertson et al (2013) demonstrated that the occupational therapy literature is important for clinicians and is an essential part of their practice. However, as more research is published, it can be increasingly time-consuming and confusing for clinicians to keep abreast of the current literature. Occupational therapy-related research may be published in different forms, in a range of locations, and be of varying methodological quality. Furthermore, readily available published studies that investigate occupational therapy efficacy may not be sufficiently powered, or may lack external validity, when applied to different clinical settings. When well conducted, systematic reviews provide a useful way of synthesizing and evaluating the evidence on a particular topic and, to some extent, provide a solution to this problem. This paper focuses upon reviews of randomized controlled trials, as these provide the highest quality of evidence on the question of a particular intervention's effectiveness. The merits of reviews of qualitative studies are also considered, together with the possibility of combining more than one type of review.

Background. Brief alcohol intervention is influenced by patients personal characteristics as well as their clinical risk. Risk-drinkers from higher social-status groups are less likely to receive brief intervention from GPs than those from lower social-status groups. Thus GPs perception of social similarity or distance may influence brief intervention. Objective. To explore the role that GPs drinking behaviour plays in their recognition of alcohol-related risk in patients. Method. A qualitative interview study with 29 GPs recruited according to maximum variation sampling. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Analysis was inductive with constant comparison within and between themes plus deviant case analysis. Analysis developed until category saturation was reached. Results. GPs described a range of personal drinking practices that broadly mirrored population drinking patterns. Many saw themselves as part of mainstream society, sharing in culturally sanctioned behaviour. For some GPs, shared drinking practices could increase empathy for patients who drank, and facilitate discussion about alcohol. However, several GPs regarded themselves as distinct from ‘others’, separating their own drinking from that of patients. Several GPs described a form of bench-marking, wherein only patients who drank more, or differently, to themselves were felt to be ‘at risk’. Conclusion. Alcohol is clearly a complex and emotive health and social issue and GPs are not immune to its effects. For some GPs shared drinking behaviour can act as a window of opportunity enabling insight on alcohol issues and facilitating discussion. However, other GPs may see through the glass more darkly and selectively recognize risk only in those patients who are least like them.