Search

Objectives Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) instruments are increasingly used in rheumatology research and care, but there is little information available to guide interpretation of scores. We sought to identify thresholds and meaningful change for PROMIS Pain Interference and Fatigue scores from the perspective of RA patients and clinicians. Methods We developed patient vignettes using the PROMIS item banks representing a continuum of Pain Interference and Fatigue levels. During a series of face-to-face ‘bookmarking’ sessions, patients and clinicians identified thresholds for mild, moderate and severe levels of symptoms and identified change deemed meaningful for making treatment decisions. Results In general, patients selected higher cut points to demarcate thresholds than clinicians. Patients and clinicians generally identified changes of 5–10 points as representing meaningful change. The thresholds and meaningful change scores of patients were grounded in their lived experiences having RA, approach to self-management, and the impacts on function, roles and social participation. Conclusion Results offer new information about how both patients and clinicians view RA symptoms and functional impacts. Results suggest that patients and providers may use different strategies to define and interpret RA symptoms, and select different thresholds when describing symptoms as mild, moderate or severe. The magnitude of symptom change selected by patients and clinicians as being clinically meaningful in interpreting treatment efficacy and loss of response may be greater than levels determined by external anchor and statistical methods.

Rheumatology workforces are increasingly challenged by too few physicians in face of the growing burden of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Rheumatology is one of the most frequent non-surgical specialty referrals and has the longest wait times for subspecialists. We used a population-based approach to describe changes in the rheumatology workforce, patient volumes and geographic variation in the supply of and access to rheumatologists, in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2019, and projected changes in supply by 2030. Over time, we observed greater feminization of the workforce and increasing age of workforce members. We identified a large regional variation in rheumatology supply. Fewer new patients are seen annually, which likely contributes to increasing wait times and reduced access to care. Strategies and policies to raise the critical mass and improve regional distribution of supply to effectively provide rheumatology care and support the healthcare delivery of patients with RMDs are needed.

Background: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. ‘Healthcare providers’ are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. Objectives: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. Main results: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms. For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. Authors' conclusions: Decision coaching may improve participants’ knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shared Decision Making (SDM) Working Group aims to determine the core outcome domain set for measuring the effectiveness of SDM interventions in rheumatology trials.Methods.A white paper was developed to clarify the draft core domain set. It was then used to prepare for interviews to investigate reasons for lack of consensus on it and to suggest further improvements.Results.OMERACT scientists/clinicians (n = 13) and patients (n = 10) suggested limiting the core domain set to outcome domains, removing process domains, and clarifying remaining domains.Conclusion.A revised core domain set will undergo further consensus-building.

Background Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Discussion We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

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.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Safety Working Group is identifying core safety domains that matter most to patients with rheumatic disease.Methods.International focus groups were held with 39 patients with inflammatory arthritis to identify disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) experiences and concerns. Themes were identified by pragmatic thematic coding and discussed in small groups by meeting attendees.Results.Patients view DMARD side effects as a continuum and consider the cumulative effect on day-to-day function. Disease and drug experiences, personal factors, and life circumstances influence tolerance of side effects and treatment persistence.Conclusion.Patients weigh overall adverse effects and benefits over time in relation to experiences and life circumstances.

Background Fatigue is prevalent and impactful in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is no standardized measure for its assessment nor data concerning the performance of PROMIS-Fatigue short forms (SFs) in people with RA. We evaluated the construct validity of 4-, 7-, and 8-item PROMIS-Fatigue SFs in RA patients across the range of disease activity. Methods Adult RA patients were recruited from an online patient community and an observational cohort from three academic medical centers. Measures included PROMIS-Fatigue SFs, other PROMIS measures, and other patient reported outcomes including RAND-36 Vitality, Fatigue NRS, and patient global assessment of disease activity. Other measures from the observational cohort included 28-joint swollen and tender joints, physician global assessment, and the composite RA clinical disease activity index (CDAI). Results Two-hundred online participants and 348 participants from the observational cohort were included. PROMIS Fatigue SF scores spanned the measurement continuum and correlated highly with each other (r’s ≥ 0.91) and other fatigue measures (r’s ≥ 0.85). PROMIS-Fatigue SF scores were highly and inversely associated with Physical Function and Participation (r’s − 0.77 to − 0.78), and moderately-highly and positively correlated with pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression (r’s 0.60 to 0.75). PROMIS-Fatigue SF scores showed dose-response relationships across fatigue severity descriptors and CDAI categories. Conclusions These results provide robust evidence supporting the construct validity of the 4, 7, and 8-item PROMIS-Fatigue SFs. They capture fatigue across the spectrum of RA disease activity in diverse groups of individuals and should be considered for use as patient-centered assessments of disease control and treatment efficacy.

Objective Our aim was to characterize referrals to rheumatologists, the early care management of patients with rheumatic diseases, and timeliness of care and treatment. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study involving patients with first-time rheumatology referrals between 2000 and 2013 in the primary care Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) in Ontario, Canada. Referrals were characterized in terms of diagnoses, patient demographics, diagnostic tests, treatment initiated by family physicians and rheumatologists, and other specialists seen prior to rheumatology consultation. Timeliness of referrals, rheumatologist consultations, and treatment were determined overall and for each diagnostic category. Results Among 2,430 patients referred to a rheumatologist, 69% were female, with an average age of 53 years. The principal diagnosis associated with the referral included osteoarthritis (32%), systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (31%), regional musculoskeletal conditions (16%), chronic pain conditions (14%), osteoporosis (2%), and other/miscellaneous (5%). Family physicians most frequently prescribed nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs/cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (38%), and their pre-referral diagnostic testing practice varied considerably. The duration of time from symptom onset to rheumatology consultation varied by diagnoses, with the shortest being for patients with systemic rheumatic diseases; for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the median time to consultation was 327 days. Most of the delay occurred prior to referral; 36% of RA patients initiated a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug within 6 months of symptom onset. Conclusion Approximately 1 in 3 referrals to rheumatologists were for a systemic inflammatory rheumatic disease. We observed substantial delays to rheumatology consultations and variations in patterns of care that could be amenable to quality improvement interventions.

Patient decision-aids (PtDAs) help patients make informed treatment decisions incorporating their values. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is sometimes an outcome of PtDA effectiveness trials, but its suitability for this purpose is unclear. We sought to provide insights into this question by critically appraising how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDA effectiveness measure and report HRQOL. We conducted a sub-analysis of RCTs included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs. Trials assessing HRQOL at baseline and post-PtDA, and comparing PtDA with comparison groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Analysis was descriptive. Of 105 RCTs, 11 were eligible for inclusion. Patients randomized to PtDAs did not report better HRQOL than those randomized to usual care. While all 11 RCTs adequately described baseline sample characteristics and reported HRQOL results for study groups, few stated a priori HRQOL expectations or hypotheses (36%); made a link between HRQOL and the decision (18%); provided a rationale or justification for HRQOL assessment (18%); provided reason for choice of HRQOL assessment time-points (9%); or adjusted p-values for multiple HRQOL domains and time-points (0%). PtDAs did not conclusively impact HRQOL. If this holds generally, then HRQOL is an uninformative endpoint for PtDA effectiveness trials. When planning trials of PtDAs, investigators considering HRQOL endpoints should consider whether and why their PtDA is likely to affect HRQOL in their context, and if so, which specific aspect(s) of HRQOL and at which time-point(s), and ensure HRQOL is assessed accordingly.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with an approved biological agent compared to biological monotherapy, in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and other sources were searched for randomised trials evaluating a biological agent plus MTX versus the same biological agent in monotherapy. Co-primary outcomes were ACR50 and the number of patients who discontinued due to adverse events (AEs). Random-effects models were applied for meta-analyses with risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals and the GRADE approach was used to assess confidence in the estimates. Results: The analysis comprised 16 trials (4965 patients), including all biological agents approved for RA except anakinra and certolizumab. The overall likelihood of responding to therapy (i.e. ACR50) after 6 months was 32% better when MTX was given concomitantly with biological agents (1.32 [1.20–1.45]; P ≺ 0.001) corresponding to 11 more out of 100 patients (7–16 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. Discontinuing due to AEs from concomitant use of MTX was potentially 20% increased (1.21 [0.97–1.50]; P = 0.09) compared to biological monotherapy corresponding to 1 more out of 100 patients (0–3 more); Moderate Quality Evidence. Conclusions: Randomised trials provide Moderate Quality Evidence for a favourable benefit-harm balance supporting concomitant use of MTX rather than monotherapy when prescribing a biological agent in patients with RA although in absolute terms only 7–16 more out of 100 patients will achieve an ACR50 response after 6 months of this combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non‐randomized trials, controlled before‐after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer‐based or patient‐reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains. Forty‐four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) ‐0.09, 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD ‐0.10, 95% CI ‐0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health‐related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI ‐0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105). It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI ‐0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI ‐0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD ‐0.65, 95% CI ‐1.29 to ‐0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health‐related QOL. Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: ‐0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health‐related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health‐related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low‐certainty evidence). It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD ‐0.30, 95% CI ‐1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI ‐0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health‐related QOL, consultation length or costs. Twenty‐eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient‐mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI ‐0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD ‐0.01, 95% CI ‐0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, ‐0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health‐related QOL (SMD 0.01, ‐0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI ‐0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD ‐0.29, 95% CI ‐1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health‐related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is frequent and often severe and disabling in RA, and there is no consensus on how to measure it. We used online surveys and in-person interviews to evaluate PROMIS Fatigue 7a and 8a short forms (SFs) in people with RA. METHODS: We recruited people with RA from an online patient community (n=200) and three academic medical centers (n=84) in the US. Participants completed both SFs then rated the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the items to their fatigue experience. Cognitive debriefing of items was conducted in a subset of 32 clinic patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and associations were evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Mean SF scores were similar (p≥0.61) among clinic patients reflecting mild fatigue (i.e., 54.5–55.9), but were significantly higher (p

Plain English summary With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement? We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported. Abstract Background Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181–94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587–8]. Since POR’s inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included. Results Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40900-018-0099-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective.Despite the importance of shared decision making for delivering patient-centered care in rheumatology, there is no consensus on how to measure its process and outcomes. The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) working group is to determine the core set of domains for measuring shared decision making in intervention studies in adults with osteoarthritis (OA), from the perspectives of patients, health professionals, and researchers.Methods.We followed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 method to develop a draft core domain set by (1) forming an OMERACT working group; (2) conducting a review of domains of shared decision making; and (3) obtaining opinions of all those involved using a modified nominal group process held at a session activity at the OMERACT 12 meeting.Results.In all, 26 people from Europe, North America, and Australia, including 5 patient research partners, participated in the session activity. Participants identified the following domains for measuring shared decision making to be included as part of the draft core set: (1) identifying the decision, (2) exchanging information, (3) clarifying views, (4) deliberating, (5) making the decision, (6) putting the decision into practice, and (7) assessing the effect of the decision. Contextual factors were also suggested.Conclusion.We proposed a draft core set of shared decision-making domains for OA intervention research studies. Next steps include a workshop at OMERACT 13 to reach consensus on these proposed domains in the wider OMERACT group, as well as to detail subdomains and assess instruments to develop a core outcome measurement set.

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials.MethodsAn interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials.ResultsA randomised trial can usefully be classified as ‘health equity relevant’ if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as ‘health equity relevant’ may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies.ConclusionThe conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: We aim to assess methods used to assess health equity considerations, and how they are reported, in studies that have assessed cohorts of RCTs.

Objective.To develop a Canadian Rheumatoid Arthritis Core Clinical Dataset (CAN-RACCD) to standardize documentation encouraging high-quality care.Methods.A set of candidate elements was drafted through meetings with 27 rheumatologists, researchers, and patients, and supplemented with focused literature reviews. A 3-round online-modified Delphi consensus process was held with rheumatologists (n = 26), allied health professionals (n = 7), and patients (n = 4); for the remainder there was no demographic information. Participants rated both the importance and feasibility of documenting candidate elements on a Likert scale of 1–9, contributed to an online moderated discussion, and re-rated the elements for inclusion in the CAN-RACCD. Elements were included in the final set if importance and feasibility ratings had a median score of ≥ 6.5 and there was no disagreement among participants.Results.Fifty-five individual elements in 10 subgroups were proposed to the Delphi participants: measures of RA disease activity; dates to calculate waiting times, disease duration, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drug start; comorbidities; smoking status; patient-reported pain and fatigue; physical function; laboratory and radiographic investigations; medications; clinical characteristics; and vaccines. All groups were included in the final set, with the exception of vaccination status. Additionally, 3 individual elements from the smoking subgroup were eliminated with a recommendation to record smoking status as never/ever/current, and 2 elements relating to coping and effect of fatigue were eliminated due to low feasibility and importance ratings.Conclusion.The CAN-RACCD stands as a national recommendation on which data elements should be routinely collected in clinical practice to monitor and support high-quality RA care.

Objective.The aim of this Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Working Group was to determine the core set of outcome domains and subdomains for measuring the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in rheumatology clinical trials.Methods.Following the OMERACT Filter 2.0, and based on a previous literature review of SDM outcome domains and a nominal group process at OMERACT 2014, (1) an online Delphi survey was conducted to gather feedback on the draft core set and refine its domains and subdomains, and (2) a workshop was held at the OMERACT 2016 meeting to gain consensus on the draft core set.Results.A total of 170 participants completed Round 1 of the Delphi survey, and 116 completed Round 2. Respondents came from 29 countries, with 49% being patients/caregivers. Results showed that 14 out of the 17 subdomains within the 7 domains exceeded the 70% criterion (endorsement ranged from 83% to 100% of respondents). At OMERACT 2016, only 8% of the 96 attendees were patients/caregivers. Despite initial votes of support in breakout groups, there was insufficient comfort about the conceptualization of these 7 domains and 17 subdomains for these to be endorsed at OMERACT 2016 (endorsement ranged from 17% to 68% of participants).Conclusion.Differences between the Delphi survey and consensus meeting may be explained by the manner in which the outcomes were presented, variations in participant characteristics, and the context of voting. Further efforts are needed to address the limited understanding of SDM and its outcomes among OMERACT participants.

PURPOSE:\ud Active patient engagement is increasingly viewed as essential to ensuring that patient-driven perspectives are considered throughout the research process. However, guidance for patient engagement (PE) in HRQoL research does not exist, the evidence-base for practice is limited, and we know relatively little about underpinning values that can impact on PE practice. This is the first study to explore the values that should underpin PE in contemporary HRQoL research to help inform future good practice guidance.\ud METHODS:\ud A modified 'World Café' was hosted as a collaborative activity between patient partners, clinicians and researchers: self-nominated conference delegates participated in group discussions to explore values associated with the conduct and consequences of PE. Values were captured via post-it notes and by nominated note-takers. Data were thematically analysed: emergent themes were coded and agreement checked. Association between emergent themes, values and the Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework were explored.\ud RESULTS:\ud Eighty participants, including 12 patient partners, participated in the 90-min event. Three core values were defined: (1) building relationships; (2) improving research quality and impact; and (3) developing best practice. Participants valued the importance of building genuine, collaborative and deliberative relationships-underpinned by honesty, respect, co-learning and equity-and the impact of effective PE on research quality and relevance.\ud CONCLUSIONS:\ud An explicit statement of values seeks to align all stakeholders on the purpose, practice and credibility of PE activities. An innovative, flexible and transparent research environment was valued as essential to developing a trustworthy evidence-base with which to underpin future guidance for good PE practice.

Arthritis patients often take fish oil supplements to alleviate symptoms, but limited evidence exists regarding their efficacy. The objective was to evaluate whether marine oil supplements reduce pain and/or improve other clinical outcomes in patients with arthritis. Six databases were searched systematically (24 February 2015). We included randomized trials of oral supplements of allmarine oils compared with a control in arthritis patients. The internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and heterogeneity was explored using restricted maximum of likelihood (REML)-based meta-regression analysis. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the overall quality of the evidence. Forty-two trials were included; 30 trials reported complete data on pain. The standardized mean difference (SMD) suggested a favorable effect (-0.24; 95% confidence interval, CI, -0.42 to -0.07; heterogeneity, I2 = 63%. A significant effect was found in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (22 trials; -0.21; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.004) and other or mixed diagnoses (3 trials; -0.63; 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.06), but not in osteoarthritis patients (5 trials; -0.17; 95% CI, -0.57–0.24). The evidence for using marine oil toalleviate pain in arthritis patients was overall of low quality, but of moderate quality in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop a reliable way to identify and measure RA flares in randomized controlled trials (RCT). Here, we summarized the development and field testing of the RA Flare Questionnaire (RA-FQ), and the voting results at OMERACT 2016.Methods.Classic and modern psychometric methods were used to assess reliability, validity, sensitivity, factor structure, scoring, and thresholds. Interviews with patients and clinicians also assessed content validity, utility, and meaningfulness of RA-FQ scores.Results.People with RA in observational trials in Canada (n = 896) and France (n = 138), and an RCT in the Netherlands (n = 178) completed 5 items (11-point numerical rating scale) representing RA Flare core domains. There was moderate to high evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. Factor analysis supported unidimensionality. Rasch analysis showed acceptable fit to the Rasch model, with items and people covering a broad measurement continuum and evidence of appropriate targeting of items to people, ordered thresholds, minimal differential item functioning by language, sex, or age. A summative score across items is defensible, yielding an interval score (0–50) where higher scores reflect worsening flare. The RA-FQ received endorsement from 88% of attendees that it passed the OMERACT Filter 2.0 “Eyeball Test” for instrument selection.Conclusion.The RA-FQ has been developed to identify and measure RA flares. Its review through OMERACT Filter 2.0 shows evidence of reliability, content and construct validity, and responsiveness. These properties merit its further validation as an outcome for clinical trials.

Objective.The OMERACT Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group (FG) is developing a data-driven, patient-inclusive, consensus-based RA flare definition for use in clinical trials, longterm observational studies, and clinical practice. At OMERACT 11, we sought endorsement of a proposed core domain set to measure RA flare.Methods.Patient and healthcare professional (HCP) qualitative studies, focus groups, and literature review, followed by patient and HCP Delphi exercises including combined Delphi consensus at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 10 (OMERACT 10), identified potential domains to measure flare. At OMERACT 11, breakout groups discussed key domains and instruments to measure them, and proposed a research agenda. Patients were active research partners in all focus groups and domain identification activities. Processes for domain selection and patient partner involvement were case studies for OMERACT Filter 2.0 methodology.Results.A pre-meeting combined Delphi exercise for defining flare identified 9 domains as important (> 70% consensus from patients or HCP). Four new patient-reported domains beyond those included in the RA disease activity core set were proposed for inclusion (fatigue, participation, stiffness, and self-management). The RA FG developed preliminary flare questions (PFQ) to measure domains. In combined plenary voting sessions, OMERACT 11 attendees endorsed the proposed RA core set to measure flare with ≥ 78% consensus and the addition of 3 additional domains to the research agenda for OMERACT 12.Conclusion.At OMERACT 11, a core domain set to measure RA flare was ratified and endorsed by attendees. Domain validation aligning with Filter 2.0 is ongoing in new randomized controlled clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies using existing and new instruments including a set of PFQ.

Objective.The objectives of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Stiffness special interest group (SIG) are to characterize stiffness as an outcome in rheumatic disease and to identify and validate a stiffness patient-reported outcome (PRO) in rheumatology.Methods.At OMERACT 2016, international groups presented and discussed results of several concurrent research projects on stiffness: a literature review of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stiffness PRO measures, a qualitative investigation into the RA and polymyalgia rheumatica patient perspective of stiffness, data-driven stiffness conceptual model development, development and testing of an RA stiffness PRO measure, and a quantitative work testing stiffness items in patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis.Results.The literature review identified 52 individual stiffness PRO measures assessing morning or early morning stiffness severity/intensity or duration. Items were heterogeneous, had little or inconsistent psychometric property evidence, and did not appear to have been developed according to the PRO development guidelines. A poor match between current stiffness PRO and the conceptual model identifying the RA patient experience of stiffness was identified, highlighting a major flaw in PRO selection according to the OMERACT filter 2.0.Conclusion.Discussions within the Stiffness SIG highlighted the importance of further research on stiffness and defined a research agenda.

Background The Wait Time Alliance recently established wait time benchmarks for rheumatology consultations in Canada. Our aim was to quantify wait times to primary and rheumatology care for patients with rheumatic diseases. Methods We identified patients from primary care practices in the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database who had referrals to Ontario rheumatologists over the period 2000-2013. To assess the full care pathway, we identified dates of symptom onset, presentation in primary care and referral from electronic medical records. Dates of rheumatologist consultations were obtained by linking with physician service claims. We determined the duration of each phase of the care pathway (symptom onset to primary care encounter, primary care encounter to referral, and referral to rheumatologist consultation) and compared them with established benchmarks. Results Among 2430 referrals from 168 family physicians, 2015 patients (82.9%) were seen by 146 rheumatologists within 1 year of referral. Of the 2430 referrals, 2417 (99.5%) occurred between 2005 and 2013. The main reasons for referral were osteoarthritis (32.4%) and systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (30.6%). Wait times varied by diagnosis and geographic region. Overall, the median wait time from referral to rheumatologist consultation was 74 (interquartile range 27-101) days; it was 66 (interquartile range 18-84) days for systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Wait time benchmarks were not achieved, even for the most urgent types of referral. For systemic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, most of the delays occurred before referral. Interpretation Rheumatology wait times exceeded established benchmarks. Targeted efforts are needed to promote more timely access to both primary and rheumatology care. Routine linkage of electronic medical records with administrative data may help fill important gaps in knowledge about waits to primary and specialty care.

Aim The purpose of this study was to translate evidence from Cochrane Reviews into a format that can be used to facilitate shared decision making during the consultation, namely patient decision aids. Methods A systematic development process (a) established a stakeholder committee; (b) developed a prototype according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards; (c) applied the prototype to a Cochrane Review and used an interview-guided survey to evaluate acceptability/usability; (d) created 12 consult decision aids; and (e) used a Delphi process to reach consensus on considerations for creating a consult decision aid. Results The 1-page prototype includes (a) a title specifying the decision; (b) information on the health condition, options, benefits/harms with probabilities; (c) an explicit values clarification exercise; and (d) questions to screen for decisional conflict. Hyperlinks provide additional information on definitions, probabilities presented graphically, and references. Fourteen Cochrane Consumer Network members and Cochrane Editorial Unit staff participated. Thirteen reported that it would help patient/clinician discussions and were willing to use and/or recommend it. Seven indicated the right amount of information, six not enough, and one too much. Changes to the prototype were more links to definitions, more white space, and details on GRADE evidence ratings. Creating 12 consult decision aids took about 4 h each. We identified ten considerations when selecting Cochrane Reviews for creating consult decision aids. Conclusions Using a systematic process, we developed a consult decision aid prototype to be populated with evidence from Cochrane Reviews. It was acceptable and easy to apply. Future studies will evaluate implementation of consult decision aids. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40271-016-0177-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PURPOSE: The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) measures the skills of musculoskeletal patients in managing their own healthcare. The objectives of this study were to translate the EC-17 into Dutch and to further evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The EC-17 was translated and cognitively pretested following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Two hundred and thirty-eight outpatients (52 % response rate) with osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia completed the EC-17 along with other validated measures. Three weeks later, 101 patients completed the EC-17 again. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure of the scale. The items adequately fit the Rasch model and only one item demonstrated differential item functioning. Person reliability was high (0.92), but item difficulty levels tended to cluster around the middle of the scale, and measurement precision was highest for moderate and lower levels of skills. The scale demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71), and correlations with other measures were largely as expected. CONCLUSION: The results supported the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the EC-17, but suggest that the scale is best targeted at patients with relatively low levels of skills. Future studies should further examine its sensitivity to change in a clinical trial specifically aimed at improving effective consumer skills.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Special Interest Group (SIG) was established in 2008 to create a preliminary core set of outcome measures for clinical trials that can assess equity gaps in healthcare and the effectiveness of interventions to close or narrow gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged populations with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. At the OMERACT 11 meeting in 2012, the Equity SIG workshop focused on health assessment scales and their applicability for disadvantaged patients with MSK conditions. The intent was to determine whether the items and domains in 2 common questionnaires, the Health Assessment Questionnaire and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Survey, are appropriate for the activities and life experiences of certain disadvantaged populations, and whether completion of any of the scales would present a challenge to disadvantaged persons. To generate discussion, we considered the reading level of items in these questionnaires and whether they would be accessible to people with different levels of literacy. The group concluded that the choice of measurement instrument may contribute to “outcome measure–generated inequalities” because disadvantaged groups might have difficulty understanding some of the questions. The future work of the Equity SIG will explore the appropriateness of different measurement scales as they relate to inequities in arthritis as well as the risk of exacerbating disadvantages for patients with low literacy.

Objective.The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) comprises 17 items measuring the main skills and behaviors people need to effectively manage their healthcare. We tested the responsiveness of the EC-17.Methods.Participants, in 2 waves of a 6-week Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP) from Arthritis Ireland, received a questionnaire at the first and last week of the weekly ASMP. The questionnaire included the EC-17 and 10 other measures for arthritis. Deficits, mean change, and standard deviations were calculated at baseline and Week 6. The EC-17 scores were compared to the Arthritis Self-Efficacy (ASE) and Patient Activation Measure (PAM) scales. Results were presented at OMERACT 9.Results.There is some overlap between the EC-17 and the ASE and PAM; however, most items of greatest deficit in the EC-17 are not covered by those scales. In 327 participants representing both intervention waves (2006 and 2007), the EC-17 was more efficient than the ASE but less efficient than the PAM for detecting improvements after the ASMP, and was moderately correlated with the PAM.Conclusion.The EC-17 appears to measure different skills and attributes than the ASE and PAM. Discussions with participants at OMERACT 9 agreed that it is worthwhile to measure the skills and attributes of an effective consumer, and supported the development of an intervention (such as proposed online decision aids) that would include education in the categories in the EC-17.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Flare Group was established to develop an approach to identify and measure RA flares. An overview of our OMERACT 2014 plenary is provided.Methods.Feasibility and validity of flare domains endorsed at OMERACT 11 (2012) were described based on initial data from 3 international studies collected using a common set of questions specific to RA flare. Mean flare frequency, severity, and duration data were presented, and domain scores were compared by flare status to examine known-groups validity. Breakout groups provided input for stiffness, self-management, contextual factors, and measurement considerations.Results.Flare data from 501 patients in an observational study indicated 39% were in flare, with mean (SD) severity of 6.0 (2.6) and 55% lasting > 14 days. Pain, physical function, fatigue, participation, and stiffness scores averaged ≥ 2 times higher (2 of 11 points) in flaring individuals. Correlations between flare domains and corresponding legacy instruments were obtained: r = 0.46 to 0.93. A combined definition (patient report of flare and 28-joint Disease Activity Score increase) was evaluated in 2 other trials, with similar results. Breakout groups debated specific measurement issues.Conclusion.These data contribute initial evidence of feasibility and content validation of the OMERACT RA Flare Core Domain Set. Our research agenda for OMERACT 2016 includes establishing duration/intensity criteria and developing criteria to identify RA flares using existing disease activity measures. Ongoing work will also address discordance between patient and physician ratings, facilitate application of flare criteria to clinical care, elucidate the role of self-management, and finalize recommendations for RA flare measurement.

Background There is a shift toward making health care patient centered, whereby patients are part of medical decision-making and take responsibility for managing their health. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture the patient voice and can be used to engage patients in medical decision-making. Objective The objective of this paper is to present important factors from patients', clinicians', researchers', and decision-makers' perspectives that influence successful adoption of PROs in clinical practice. Factors recommended in this paper were informed by a patient partner. Discussion Based on themes arising from the Montreal Accord proceedings, we describe factors that influence the adoption of PROs and how PROs can have a positive effect by enhancing communication and providing opportunities to engage patients, carers, and clinicians in care. Consideration of patient factors (e.g., health literacy), family support and networks (e.g., peer-support networks), technology (e.g., e-health), and health care system factors (e.g., resources to implement PROs) is necessary to ensure PROs are successfully adopted. PRO evaluation plans most likely to succeed over the long term are those incorporating PROs identified by patients as necessary for self-management and that coincide with providers' needs for collaboratively developing treatment plans with patients and families.

Objective.To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers.Methods.We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results).Results.Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments.Conclusion.There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

Background Morphea (morphoea) is an immune-mediated disease in which excess synthesis and deposition of collagen in the skin and underlying connective tissues results in hardened cutaneous areas. Morphea has different clinical features according to the subtype and stage of evolution of the disease. There is currently no consensus on optimal interventions for morphea. Objectives To assess the effects of treatments for people with any form of morphea. Search methods We searched the following databases up to July 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and five trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of topical, intralesional, or systemic treatments (isolated or combined) in anyone who has been clinically diagnosed by a medical practitioner with any form of morphea. Eligible controls were placebo, no intervention, any other treatment, or different doses or duration of a treatment. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants, and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement of disease activity and improvement of disease damage. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. Main results We included 14 trials, with a total of 429 randomised participants, aged between 3 and 76 years. There were juvenile and adult participants; over half were female, and the majority had circumscribed morphea, followed by linear scleroderma. The settings of the studies (where described) included a dermatologic centre, a national laboratory centre, paediatric rheumatology and dermatology centres, and a university hospital or medical centre.The studies evaluated heterogenous therapies for different types of morphea, covering a wide range of comparisons. We were unable to conduct any meta-analyses. Seven studies investigated topical medications, two evaluated intralesional medications, and five investigated systemic medications. The study duration ranged from seven weeks to 15 months from baseline.We present here results for our primary outcomes for our four key comparisons. All of these results are based on low-quality evidence.The included studies were at high risk of performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias.Global improvement of disease activity or damage after treatment may be higher with oral methotrexate (15 mg/m², maximum 20 mg, once a week, for 12 months or until disease flare) plus oral prednisone (1 mg/kg a day, maximum of 50 mg, in a single morning dose, for three months, and one month with gradually decreased dose until discontinuation) than with placebo plus oral prednisone in children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed) (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 4.45; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3; 1 randomised controlled trial (RCT); 70 participants, all juvenile). This outcome was measured 12 months from the start of treatment or until flare of the disease. Data were not available separately for each morphea type. There may be little or no difference in the number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event with oral methotrexate (26/46) or placebo (11/24) (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.04; 1 RCT; 70 participants assessed during the 12-month follow-up). Adverse events related to methotrexate included alopecia, nausea, headache, fatigue and hepatotoxicity, whilst adverse events related to prednisone (given in both groups) included weight gain (more than 5% of body weight) and striae rubrae.One three-armed RCT compared the following treatments: medium-dose (50 J/cm²) UVA-1; low-dose (20 J/cm²) UVA-1; and narrowband UVB phototherapy. There may be little or no difference between treatments in global improvement of disease activity or damage, as assessed through the modified skin score (where high values represent a worse outcome): medium-dose UVA-1 phototherapy versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD 1.60, 95% CI -1.70 to 4.90 (44 participants); narrowband UVB phototherapy versus medium-dose UVA-1 group: MD -1.70, 95% CI -5.27 to 1.87 (35 participants); and narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1 group: MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.49 to 2.29 (45 participants). This RCT included children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea), who received phototherapy five times a week, for eight weeks. Outcomes were measured at eight weeks from the start of treatment.Safety data, measured throughout treatment, from the same RCT (62 participants) showed that treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy may cause mild tanning compared to narrowband UVB: narrowband UVB versus medium-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42; 35 participants; narrowband UVB versus low-dose UVA-1: RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.41; 45 participants. However, there may be no difference in the number of participants reporting mild tanning when comparing medium and low dose UVA-1 phototherapy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 44 participants). Transient erythema was reported in three participants with narrowband UVB and no participants in the low- or medium-dose UVA-1 groups. Authors' conclusions Compared to placebo plus oral prednisone, oral methotrexate plus oral prednisone may improve disease activity or damage in juvenile active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea or mixed morphea: linear and circumscribed), but there may be a slightly increased chance of experiencing at least one adverse event.When medium-dose UVA-1 (50 J/cm²), low-dose UVA-1 (20 J/cm²), and narrowband UVB were compared against each other in treating children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed morphea), there may be little or no difference between these treatments on global improvement of disease activity or damage. UVA-1 phototherapy may cause more mild tanning than narrowband UVB, but there may be no difference between medium- and low-dose UVA-1 phototherapy. These results are based on low-quality evidence.Limitations of data and analyses include risk of bias and imprecision (small number of participants or events and wide confidence intervals). We encourage multicentre RCTs to increase sample size and evaluate, with validated tools, different treatment responses according to the subtypes of morphea and age groups.

Objective.At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the “Truth” statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent these new Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied.Methods.Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.Results.Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons.Conclusion.Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients.

Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Objective To identify high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews with consideration of health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). Study Design and Setting We consulted with experts and conducted a literature search to identify a priority-setting method that could be adapted to address the health equity and SDH. We selected the Global Evidence Mapping priority-setting method, and through consultations and consensus, we adapted the method to meet our objectives. This involves developing an evidence map of the existing systematic reviews on osteoarthritis; conducting one face-to-face workshop with patients and another one with clinicians, researchers, and patients; and conducting an online survey of patients to rank the top 10 research questions. We piloted the adapted method with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group to set research priorities for osteoarthritis. Results Our focus was on systematic reviews: we identified 34 high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Prevention and self-management interventions, mainly diet and exercise, are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Evaluation against our predefined objectives showed that this method did prioritize SDH (50% of the research questions considered SDH). There were marked gaps: no high-priority topics were identified for access to care until patients had advanced disease–lifestyle changes once the disease was diagnosed. This method was felt feasible if conducted annually. Conclusion We confirmed the utility of an adapted priority-setting method that is feasible and considers SDH. Further testing of this method is needed to assess whether considerations of health equity are prioritized and involve disadvantaged groups of the population.

The 2008 World Health Report emphasizes the need for patient-centered primary care service delivery models in which patients are equal partners in the planning and management of their health. It is argued that this involvement will lead to improved management of disease, improved health outcomes and patient satisfaction, better informed decision-making, increased compliance with healthcare decisions, and better resource utilization. This article investigates the domains captured by the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) in relation to vulnerable population groups that experience health inequity. Particular focus is paid to the domain of health literacy as an area fundamental to patients’ involvement in managing their condition and negotiating the healthcare system. In examining the possible influence of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) on health equity, we used the recent translation and validation of the EC-17 scale into Spanish and tested Argentina as an example. Future plans to use the EC-17 with vulnerable groups include formal collaboration and needs assessment with the community to tailor an intervention to meet its needs in a culturally relevant manner. Some systematic reviews have questioned whether interventions to improve effective consumer skills are appropriate in vulnerable populations. We propose that these populations may have the most to gain from such interventions since they might be expected to have relatively lower skills and health literacy than other groups.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals’ adoption of SDM. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument). Data collection and analysis At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies. Main results The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention. Authors' conclusions The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.