Search

Background/Aims Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), but high-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of foot and ankle treatments. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials in this area hinders the ability to compare study findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients. This study aimed to determine what outcomes are important to patients by exploring and synthesising qualitative data relating to the symptoms and impact of living with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Methods Six databases (CINAHL; Ovid Embase; Ovid MEDLINE; Psycinfo; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; CENTRAL) were searched from inception to March 2022. Qualitative interview or focus group studies published in English and involving participants living with foot or ankle disorders in RMDs (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, crystal arthropathies, connective tissue diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions in the absence of systemic disease) were included. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative tool. All data from the results section of included studies were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop themes. Patient and public involvement contributors were involved throughout the review, from design of the study to interpretation of the results and discussions about the findings. Results Of 1,440 database records screened, 34 studies were included, with a total of 581 participants. Studies focused on living with foot or ankle disorders in rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18), osteoarthritis (n = 5), gout (n = 3), psoriatic arthritis (n = 1), lupus (n = 1), posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (n = 1), plantar heel pain (n = 1), Achilles tendonitis (n = 1), and mixed population (n = 3) patients. Six themes were generated from the thematic synthesis: pain, change in appearance, activity limitations, social isolation, limited work ability and emotional impact. Foot or ankle pain was the predominant symptom experienced by patients in all included studies and was closely linked to other themes. Both pain and change in appearance of the feet or ankles (deformity), and subsequent limitations in footwear and clothing choices, led to restrictions in physical activities, social participation and work. Emotional distress, including anxiety, anger and embarrassment, was common among patients with foot and ankle disorders across all of the RMDs explored in this review. Conclusion This is the first study to synthesise findings of qualitative research exploring the lived experience of patients with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Findings indicate that these disorders impact on multiple areas of patients’ lives, both physically and psychologically. Patients’ experiences of foot and ankle disorders are similar across different RMDs, although there are a limited number of qualitative studies focusing on conditions other than rheumatoid arthritis. These findings will inform a future consensus study prioritising the outcomes that should be measured in future research studies and clinical practice. Disclosure L.S. Chapman: None. C. Flurey: None. A.C. Redmond: None. P. Richards: None. C. Hofstetter: None. B. Tapster: None. J. Emmel: None. P.S. Helliwell: None. H.B. Menz: None. M.T. Hannan: None. B. Shea: None. H.J. Siddle: None.

Objectives: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, yet high-quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders is lacking. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Foot and Ankle Working Group is developing a core outcome set for use in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies in this area. Methods: A scoping review was performed to identify outcome domains in the existing literature. Clinical trials and observational studies comparing pharmacological, conservative or surgical interventions involving adult participants with any foot or ankle disorder in the following rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) were eligible for inclusion: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), spondyloarthropathies, crystal arthropathies and connective tissue diseases. Outcome domains were categorised according to the OMERACT Filter 2.1. Results: Outcome domains were extracted from 150 eligible studies. Most studies included participants with foot/ankle OA (63% of studies) or foot/ankle involvement in RA (29% of studies). Foot/ankle pain was the outcome domain most commonly measured (78% of studies), being the most frequently specified outcome domain across all RMDs. There was considerable heterogeneity in the other outcome domains measured, across core areas of manifestations (signs, symptoms, biomarkers), life impact, and societal/resource use. The group's progress to date, including findings from the scoping review, was presented and discussed during a virtual OMERACT Special Interest Group (SIG) in October 2022. During this meeting, feedback was sought amongst delegates regarding the scope of the core outcome set, and feedback was received on the next steps of the project, including focus group and Delphi methods. Conclusion: Findings from the scoping review and feedback from the SIG will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. The next steps are to determine which outcome domains are important to patients, followed by a Delphi exercise with key stakeholders to prioritise outcome domains. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Objective To develop an equity extension of the OMERACT Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) Table, SOMP Equity to describe whether a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) works well among patients of diverse languages and cultures, education levels, and other population characteristics. Methods We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework to categorize equity characteristics assessed in trials of PROM. PROGRESS refers to Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social Capital, while the ‘plus’ captures additional characteristics, such as age. We pilot tested our SOMP Equity Extension using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a prototypical PROM. Results The SOMP Equity Extension retains the same columns as the original OMERACT SOMP (domain match, feasibility, construct validity, test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity, clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning) but uses the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics as rows. We found several examples of studies of the HAQ which had assessed one or more PROGRESS-Plus characteristics. Conclusions The most commonly reported equity considerations were related to language. OMERACT Equity virtual meeting participants were polled and they indicated that the SOMP Equity Extension is useful for highlighting and tracking equity considerations for OMERACT Core Outcome Measurement Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: OMERACT uses an evidence-based framework known as the 'OMERACT Filter Instrument Selection Algorithm' (OFISA) to guide decisions in the assessment of outcome measurement instruments for inclusion in a core outcome set for interventional and observational clinical trials.METHODS: A group of OMERACT imaging and patient-centered outcome methodologists worked with imaging outcome groups to facilitate the selection of imaging outcome measurement instruments using the OFISA approach. The lessons learned from this work influenced the evolution to Filter 2.2 and necessitated changes to OMERACT's documentation and processes.RESULTS: OMERACT has revised documentation and processes to incorporate the evolution of instrument selection to Filter 2.2. These revisions include creation of a template for detailed definitions of the target domain which is a necessary first step for instrument selection, modifications to the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table to account for sources of variability, and development of standardized reporting tables for each measurement property.CONCLUSIONS: OMERACT Filter 2.2 represents additional modifications of the OMERACT guide for working groups in their rigorous assessment of measurement properties of instruments of various types, including imaging outcome measurement instruments. Enhanced reporting aims to increase the transparency of the evidence base leading to judgements for the endorsement of instruments in core outcome sets.

Objectives Imaging is one of the most rapidly evolving fields in medicine. Unfortunately, many imaging technologies have been applied as measurement instruments without rigorous evaluation of the evidence supporting their truth, discriminatory capability and feasibility for that context of use. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection Algorithm (OFISA) is used to evaluate such evidence for use of an instrument in a research setting. The objectives of this work are to: [1] define and describe the key conceptual aspects that are essential for the evaluation of imaging as an outcome measurement instrument and [2] describe how these aspects can be assessed through OFISA. Methods Experts in imaging and/or methodology met to formalize concepts and define key steps. These concepts were discussed with a team of patient research partners with interest in imaging to refine technical and methodological aspects into comprehensible information. A workshop was held at OMERACT2020 and feedback was incorporated into existing OMERACT process for domain and instrument selection. Results Three key lessons were identified: (1) a clear definition of the domain we want to measure is a necessary prerequisite to the selection of a good instrument, (2) the sources of variability that can directly influence the instrument should be clearly identified, (3) incorporating these first two lessons into OFISA improves the quality of every instrument selection process. Conclusions The incorporation of these lessons in the updated OMERACT Filter (now 2.2) will improve the quality of the selection process for all types of outcome measurement instruments.

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.

Social networking has been shown to improve health outcomes in certain patient populations. While patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increasingly use social networking to communicate with peers, the effects of these interactions are largely unknown.In a randomized controlled trial, we compared RA patients who participated in a social networking group moderated by peer leaders and who had access to a static website offering RA materials with a control group, who only had access to the website. The primary outcomes were patients' RA knowledge, self-efficacy and empowerment. Secondary outcomes included participation in desired health behaviors, and satisfaction with peer support, among others. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3 and 6 months. Participants who never signed in were excluded from the primary analysis.105 participants were randomized to each group. Mean age was 52 (±12.4) and 92.4% were females. Knowledge scores improved in both groups, but only in the control group the differences observed at 3 and 6 months were significant (p≤0.02). Self-efficacy scores also improved in both groups, but only the differences observed at 6 months in the Facebook group were significant (p=0.02). When comparing groups, at 3 months the knowledge improvements observed in the control group were greater compared with those observed in the Facebook group (mean difference 0.4 versus 0.1; respectively, p=0.03). No other differences were observed in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups, except in peer support satisfaction. The Facebook® group reported greater peer support satisfaction in 3 out 5 subscales compared with the control group (p≤0.04).Peer support satisfaction was higher in participants using an online social network, but this was not translated into greater disease knowledge or empowerment.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity Group continues efforts to assess psychometric properties of measures of presenteeism.Methods.Psychometric properties of single-item and dual answer multiitem scales were assessed, as well as methods to evaluate thresholds of meaning.Results.Test-retest reliability and construct validity of single item global measures was moderate to good. The value of measuring both degree of difficulty and amount of time with difficulty in multiitems questionnaires was confirmed. Thresholds of meaning vary depending on methods and external anchors applied.Conclusion.We have advanced our understanding of the performance of presenteeism measures and have developed approaches to describing thresholds of meaning.

Peer support is important for psychosocial well-being in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective was to assess the interactions, engagement, and perceptions of participants in an online support group for patients with RA.Participants were 18 years or older, diagnosed with RA within 10 years, and residing in the USA or Canada. All participated in a closed Facebook online support group. Membership was by invitation only, and discussions were visible only to members, moderators, and two research staff. Each week, participants discussed a topic posted by a moderator. They also shared other disease-relevant information beside the topics posted. We assessed participants' engagement and qualitatively analyzed the content of their postings in the first 5 weeks of participation.The group had 90 participants: 94% were female and 83% white. Median age was 54 (24-84) years. Mean number of contributors per week was 50 (range, 42-62); 10% of participants never contributed to the discussions. Participation in discussions declined over time. Over three-quarters of participant posting were about information sharing. Participants shared information on disease experiences, medications, social lives (including pictures of themselves, families, and pets), online resources on RA, frustrations, messages of encouragement, and satirical depictions of their disease experience. Many expressed gratitude for the social support provided.Participants were generally enthusiastic and shared disease-related information and personal experiences. Social media groups may provide alternative means of providing education and peer support often lacking in traditional models of care.Key Points• The study examines how patients with rheumatoid arthritis engage in an online support group and the nature of their interactions.• This study reveals that social media platforms could provide viable options or complements to the traditional face-to-face small group patient support system.• It may be necessary to pay special attention to how to ensure a sustained participant interest in online social support group among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

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 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.

Objectives. To identify from a patient's perspective, difficulties and differences in the comprehension of five global presenteeism measures in patients with inflammatory arthritis and OA across seven countries. Methods. Seventy patients with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis or OA in paid employment were recruited from seven countries across Europe and Canada. Patients were randomly allocated to be cognitively debriefed on 3/5 global measures [Work Productivity Scale - Rheumatoid Arthritis, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index, Quality and Quantity questionnaire, and WHO Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ)], with the WPAI debriefed in all patients as a standard measure of comparison between countries and patients. NVivo was used to code the data into four themes: construct and anchor, time recall, reference frame, and attribution. Results. Discrepancies were found in the interpretation of the word performance (HPQ) between countries, with Romania and Sweden relating performance to sports rather than work. Seventy percent of patients considered that a 7-day recall (WPAI) can accurately represent how their disease affects work productivity. The compared to normal reference (Quality and Quantity questionnaire) was reportedly too ambiguous, and the comparison with colleagues (HPQ), made many feel uncomfortable. Overall, 29% of patients said the WPAI was the most relevant to them, making it the most favoured measure. Conclusion. Overall, patients across countries agree that the construct of work productivity in the last 7 days can accurately reflect the impact of disease while at work. Some current constructs to assess at-work productivity are not interchangeable between languages.

Objective.Several global measures to assess at-work productivity loss or presenteeism in patients with rheumatic diseases have been proposed, but the comparative validity is hampered by the lack of data on test-retest reliability and comparative concurrent and construct validity. Our objective was to test-retest 5 global measures of presenteeism and to compare the association between these scales and health-related well-being.Methods.Sixty-five participants with inflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis in paid employment were recruited from 7 countries (UK, Canada, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Romania, and Italy). At baseline and 2 weeks later, 5 global measures of presenteeism were evaluated: the Work Productivity Scale–Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI), Work Ability Index (WAI), Quality and Quantity questionnaire (QQ), and the WHO Health and Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Agreement between the 2 timepoints was assessed using single-measure intraclass correlations (ICC) and correlated between each other and with visual analog scale general well-being scores at followup by Spearman correlation.Results.ICC between measures ranged from fair (HPQ 0.59) to excellent (WPS-RA 0.78). Spearman correlations between measures were moderate (Qquality vs WAI, r = 0.51) to strong (WPS-RA vs WPAI, r = 0.88). Correlations between measures and general well-being were low to moderate, ranging from −0.44 ≤ r ≤ 0.66.Conclusion.Test-retest results of 4 out of 5 global measures were good, and the correlations between these were moderate. The latter probably reflect differences in the concepts, recall periods, and references used in the measures, which implies that some measures are probably not interchangeable.

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.

Our aim was to characterize referrals to rheumatologists, the early care management of patients with rheumatic diseases, and timeliness of care and treatment.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.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.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.

Objective. To examine inter-relationships among arthritis (A), work (W) and personal life (P) roles and their reciprocal influences, especially experiences of role balance/imbalance among individuals with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and OA. Methods. Eight focus groups were conducted with 24 women and 16 men (aged 29–72 years). A purposive sample was recruited from community advertising. Eligibility included current employment or having been employed within the previous year. Participants were asked about ways arthritis, work and personal life roles intersected and their impact. A standardized questionnaire collected demographic, symptom and employment data for descriptive purposes. Results. Participants noted that having arthritis affected their identity and intersected with work and personal roles, creating role overload, role conflict, role strain and role facilitation. Role overload highlighted that arthritis both affected and was impacted by work and personal life (A → W; A → P; W → A; P → A). Role conflict focused on A → W and A → P difficulties, whereas role facilitation emphasized the positive impact of work and personal life roles on arthritis (W → A; P → A). Role strain was pervasive and arose from numerous sources. Personal strategies (e.g. positive framing) and contextual factors (e.g. support) were important in contributing to or ameliorating role balance/imbalance. Conclusions. By comprehensively examining multiple types of role balance/imbalance and the context within which it occurs, this study identifies gaps in patient-oriented measurement of the impact of arthritis and areas of need in the development of arthritis intervention.

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are questionnaires that can be used to elicit care outcome information from patients. We sought to develop and validate the first PROM for adult patients without a primary mental health or addictions presentation receiving emergency department (ED) care and who were not hospitalized. Methods: PROM development used a multi-phase process based on national and international guidance (FDA, NQF, ISPOR). Phase 1: ED outcome conceptual framework qualitative interviews with ED patients post-discharge informed four core domains (previously published). Phase 2: Item generation scoping review of the literature and existing instruments identified candidate questions relevant for each domain for inclusion in tool. Phase 3: Cognitive debriefing existing and newly written questions were tested with ED patients post-discharge for comprehension and wording preference. Phase 4: Field and validity testing revised tool pilot tested on a national online survey panel and then again at 2 weeks (test-retest). Phase 5: Final item reduction using a Delphi process involving ED clinicians, researchers, patients and system administrators. Phase 6: Validation - psychometric testing of PROM-ED 1.0. Results: Four core outcome domains were defined in Phase 1: (1) understanding; (2) symptom relief; (3) reassurance and (4) having a plan. The domains informed a review of existing relevant questionnaires and instruments and the writing of additional questions creating an initial long-form questionnaire. Eight patients participated in cognitive debriefing of the long-form questionnaire. Expert clinicians, researchers and patient partners provided input on item refinement and reduction. Four hundred forty-four patients completed a second version of the long-form questionnaire (add in retest numbers) which informed the final item reduction process by a modified Delphi method involving 21 diverse contributors. The questionnaire was validated and underwent final revisions to create the 21 questions that constitute PROM-ED 1.0. Conclusion: Using accepted PROM instrument development methodology, we developed the first outcome questionnaire for use with adult ED patients who are not hospitalized. This questionnaire can be used to systematically gather patient-reported outcome information that could support and inform improvement work in ED care.

Research points to many potential benefits of physical activity (PA) for those with arthritis. However, PA has not typically been examined within the context of other life roles. This study examined the perceptions of PA among individuals managing arthritis in addition to employment and other role demands.Eight focus groups were conducted with 24 women and 16 men (age range 29-72 years) who were currently or recently employed (within 2 years) and had osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis. Participants were recruited from community newspaper advertisements, rheumatology clinics, and arthritis groups. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.All groups discussed the impact of arthritis on a range of PAs. Overall, participants discussed PA as positively influencing their health and well-being. Yet, several overarching themes highlighted the complexity of PA, including 1) PA as a potential cause of arthritis; 2) the reciprocal impact of arthritis on PA and PA on arthritis; 3) physical and psychological benefits and harms of PA, such as difficulty making PA decisions when living in pain or when faced with episodic symptoms; 4) perceived choices about engagement in PA (e.g., role overload); and 5) social support.The relationships among work, health, and other roles were complex. Competing demands, pain, energy, episodic symptoms, support, and decisions to disclose one's illness at work influenced PA. Changes to PA not only affected physical health but also people's self-identity. PA interventions may be improved by taking into account the demands of multiple life roles.

Polyomaviruses, as their name indicates, are viruses capable of inducing a variety of tumors in vivo. Members of this family, including the human JC and BK viruses (JCV, BKV), and the better characterized mouse polyomavirus and simian virus 40 (SV40), are small DNA viruses that commandeer a cell's molecular machinery to reproduce themselves. Studies of these virus-host interactions have greatly enhanced our understanding of a wide range of phenomena from cellular processes (e.g., DNA replication and transcription) to viral oncogenesis. The current chapter will focus upon the five known JCV early proteins and the contributions each makes to the oncogenic process (transformation) when expressed in cultured cells. Where appropriate, gaps in our understanding of JCV protein function will be supplanted with information obtained from the study of SV40 and BKV.