Search

ObjectiveDashboards can support person-centered care by helping people partner with their clinicians to coproduce care based on preferences, shared decision-making, and evidence-based treatments. We engaged caregivers of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinicians in a pilot study to assess their experiences and the utility and impact of an electronic previsit questionnaire and point-of-care dashboard to support coproduction of rheumatology care.MethodsWe employed a mixed-methods design to assess users' perceptions of a customized electronic health record rheumatology module at four pediatric rheumatology practices and two adult rheumatology practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers of children with JIA (n = 113), adults with RA (n = 116), and clinicians (n = 12). We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 caregivers and patients and six care teams. Experiences were evaluated using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses.ResultsCaregivers of children with JIA and adults with RA reported the dashboards were useful during discussions (88%) and helped them talk about what mattered most (82%), make health care decisions (83%), and create a treatment plan (77%). Clinicians provided similar feedback. Two-thirds (67%) of caregivers and adults and 55% of clinicians would recommend the dashboard to peers. System usability scores (77.1 ± 15.6) were above average. Dashboards helped users make sense of health information, communicate more effectively, and make decisions. Improvements to the dashboards and workflows could enhance patient self-management and clinician efficiency.ConclusionVisual point-of-care dashboards can support caregivers, patients, and clinicians to coproduce rheumatology care. Findings demonstrate a need to spread and scale for broader benefit and impact.

The translation of research findings into clinical practice is challenging, especially fields like in pediatric rheumatology, where the evidence base is limited, there are few clinical trials, and the conditions are rare and heterogeneous. Implementation science methodologies have been shown to reduce the research- to- practice gap in other clinical settings may have similar utility in pediatric rheumatology. This paper describes the key discussion points from the inaugural Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Implementation Science retreat held in February 2020. The aim of this report is to synthesize those findings into an Implementation Science Roadmap for pediatric rheumatology research. This roadmap is based on three foundational principles: fostering curiosity and ensuring discovery, integration of research and quality improvement, and patient-centeredness. We include six key steps anchored in the principles of implementation science. Applying this roadmap will enable researchers to evaluate the full range of research activities, from the initial clinical design and evidence acquisition to the application of those findings in pediatric rheumatology clinics and direct patient care.

BackgroundThe coproduction of care involves patients and families partnering with their clinicians and care teams, with the premise that each brings their own perspective, knowledge, and expertise, as well as their own values, goals, and preferences, to the partnership. Dashboards can display meaningful patient and clinical data to assess how a patient is doing and inform shared decision-making. Increasing communication between patients and care teams is particularly important for children with chronic conditions. Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the most common chronic pediatric rheumatic condition, is associated with increased pain, decreased function, and decreased quality of life.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to design a dashboard prototype for use in coproducing care in patients with JIA. We evaluated the use and needs of end users, obtained a consensus on the necessary dashboard data elements, and constructed display prototypes to inform meaningful discussions for coproduction.MethodsA human-centered design approach involving parents, patients, clinicians, and care team members was used to develop a dashboard to support the coproduction of care in 4 ambulatory pediatric rheumatology clinics. We engaged a multidisciplinary team (n=18) of patients, parents, clinicians, nurses, and staff during an in-person kick-off meeting followed by biweekly meetings. We also leveraged advisory panels. Teams mapped workflows and patient journeys, created personas, and developed dashboard sketches. The final dashboard components were determined via Delphi consensus voting. Low-tech dashboard testing was completed during clinic visits, and visual display prototypes were iterated by using the Plan-Do-Study-Act methodology. Patients and clinicians were surveyed regarding their experiences.ResultsTeams achieved consensus on what data mattered most at the point of care to support patients with JIA, families, and clinicians collaborating to make the best possible health care decisions. Notable themes included the right data in the right place at the right time, data in once for multiple purposes, patient and family self-management components, and the opportunity for education and increased transparency. A final set of 11 dashboard data elements was identified, including patient-reported outcomes, clinical data, and medications. Important design considerations featured the incorporation of real-time data, clearly labeled graphs, and vertical orientation to facilitate review and discussion. Prototype paper-testing with 36 patients and families yielded positive feedback, with 89% (8/9) to 100% (9/9) of parents (n=9) and 80% (8/10) to 90% (9/10) of clinicians (n=10) strongly agreeing or agreeing that the dashboard was useful during clinic discussions, helped to talk about what mattered most, and informed health care decision-making.ConclusionsWe developed a dashboard prototype that displays patient-reported and clinical data over time, along with medications that can be used during a clinic visit to support meaningful conversations and shared decision-making among patients with JIA, their families, and their clinicians and care teams.

Objective: The optimal time to start biologics in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) remains uncertain. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) developed 3 consensus treatment plans (CTPs) for untreated polyarticular JIA to compare strategies for starting biologics. Methods: Start Time Optimization of Biologics in Polyarticular JIA (STOP‐JIA) was a prospective, observational, CARRA Registry study comparing the effectiveness of 3 CTPs: 1) the step‐up plan (initial nonbiologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD] monotherapy, adding a biologic if needed, 2) the early combination plan (DMARD and biologic started together), and 3) the biologic first plan (biologic monotherapy). The primary outcome measure was clinically inactive disease according to the provisional American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, without glucocorticoids, at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and mobility scores, inactive disease as defined by the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 10 joints (JADAS‐10), and the ACR Pediatric 70 criteria (Pedi 70). Results: Of 400 patients enrolled, 257 (64%) began the step‐up plan, 100 (25%) the early combination plan, and 43 (11%) the biologic first plan. After propensity score weighting and multiple imputation, clinically inactive disease according to the ACR criteria was achieved in 37% of those on the early combination plan, 32% on the step‐up plan, and 24% on the biologic first plan (P = 0.17). Inactive disease according to the clinical JADAS‐10 (score ≤2.5) was also achieved in more patients on the early combination plan than the step‐up plan (59% versus 43%; P = 0.03), as was ACR Pedi 70 (81% versus 62%; P = 0.008), but generalizability was limited by missing data. PROMIS measures improved in all groups, but without significant differences. Twenty serious adverse events were reported (mostly infections). Conclusion: Achievement of clinically inactive disease without glucocorticoids did not significantly differ between groups at 12 months. While there was a significantly higher likelihood of early combination therapy achieving inactive disease according to the clinical JADAS‐10 and ACR Pedi 70, these results require further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement., Methods: PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as T -scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant., Results: There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher., Conclusion: As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs., Competing Interests: Dr Timothy Beukelman reports grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from UCB, outside the submitted work; Dr Millie D Long reports personal fees from AbbVie, personal fees from Janssen, grants, personal fees from Takeda, grants, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Target Pharmasolutions, personal fees from Prometheus, personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Roche, grants, personal fees from Lilly, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work; Dr Michael D Kappelman reports other from other, during the conduct of the study; Dr Peter A Merkel reports grants, personal fees from AbbVie, grants, personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants, personal fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim, grants, personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, grants, personal fees from ChemoCentryx, grants, personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, grants, personal fees from InflaRx, grants, personal fees from Neutrolis, grants, personal fees from Takeda, personal fees from CSL Behring, personal fees from Dynacure, personal fees from Immagene, personal fees from Jubilant, personal fees from Magenta, personal fees from MiroBio, personal fees from Mitsubishi, personal fees from NSPharma, personal fees from Otsuka, personal fees from Q32, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from Sparrow, grants from Eicos, grants from Electra, grants from Genentech/Roche, grants from Sanofi, personal fees, Equity options from Kyverna, Royalties from UpToDate, outside the submitted work; Dr William Benjamin Nowell reports grants from PCORI, during the conduct of the study; grants from Amgen, grants from Eli Lilly, grants from Pfizer, grants from UCB, grants from Janssen, grants from AbbVie, grants from BMS, outside the submitted work; Dr Sarah Ringold reports grants from PCORI, during the conduct of the study; Employment starting 8/9/2021 from Janssen, Salary support through 7/2021 from CARRA, Royalties from UpToDate, outside the submitted work; Dr Jeffrey R Curtis reports grants from PCORI, during the conduct of the study. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Beukelman et al.)