| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Mosor, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Young people's perspectives on patient-reported outcome measures in inflammatory arthritis: results of a multicentre European qualitative study from a EULAR task force
- 2021
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice and research, it is unclear whether these instruments cover the perspective of young people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). The aims of this study were to explore whether PROMs commonly used in IA adequately cover the perspective of young people from different European countries.MethodsA multinational qualitative study was conducted in Austria, Croatia, Italy and the Netherlands. Young people with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Still’s disease, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), aged 18–35 years, participated in semistructured focus group interviews. Thematic analysis was used and data saturation was defined as no new emergent concepts in at least three subsequent focus groups.ResultsFifty-three patients (21 with RA/JIA/Still’s, 17 with PsA, 15 with SpA; 72% women) participated in 12 focus groups. Participants expressed a general positive attitude towards PROMs and emphasised their importance in clinical practice. In addition, 48 lower level concepts were extracted and summarised into 6 higher level concepts describing potential issues for improvement. These included: need for lay-term information regarding the purpose of using PROMs; updates of certain outdated items and using digital technology for data acquisition. Some participants admitted their tendency to rate pain, fatigue or disease activity differently from what they actually felt for various reasons.ConclusionsDespite their general positive attitude, young people with IA suggested areas for PROM development to ensure that important concepts are included, making PROMs relevant over the entire course of a chronic disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ritschl, V, et al.
(författare)
-
Suitability for e-health of non-pharmacological interventions in connective tissue diseases: scoping review with a descriptive analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 7:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Non-pharmacological interventions support patients with connective tissue diseases to better cope with and self-manage their diseases. This study aimed to map existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), systemic sclerosis (SSc) and mixed connective tissue diseases regarding content, feasibility and potential suitability in an e-health setting.MethodsA literature search was performed in eight different databases in July 2020. The intervention’s content was extracted using the ‘Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide’. A Sankey diagram and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data and illustrate the relationships between the interventions.ResultsOf 8198 identified records, 119 papers were eligible. One hundred and four of them (87.4%) were conducted between 2000 and 2020, mainly in the USA (SLE n=24 (21.2%), SSc n=16 (14.2%)), Brazil (SLE n=8 (7.1%), SSc n=5 (4.4%)) and Italy (SLE n=0 (0%), SSc n=12 (10.6%)). Fifty-two studies (SLE n=24 (21.2%), SSc n=28 (24.8%)) used multicomponent interventions. The single interventions were physical exercises (SLE n=16 (14.2%), SSc n=17 (15.0%)), coaching/counselling (SLE n=11 (18.0%), SSc n=0 (0%)) and education (SLE n=2 (1.8%), SSc n=3 (2.7%)). Primary outcomes focused on physical function (SLE n=1 (0.9%), SSc n=15 (13.3%)), mouth opening in SSc (n=4 (5.9%)) and physical capacity (SLE n=2 (1.8%), SSc n=1 (0.9%)). No interventions for mixed connective tissue disease were found.ConclusionThere was a great variety in the intervention’s content due to differences in body structure, activity limitations and participation restrictions in SLE and SSc. These results highlight the need for personalised, multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions, which could be delivered as e-health interventions.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sperl, L, et al.
(författare)
-
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AMONG HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN RHEUMATOLOGY: LOW AWARENESS OF EULAR OFFERINGS AND UNFAMILIARITY WITH COURSE CONTENT AS A MAJOR BARRIER - A EULAR FUNDED EUROPEAN SURVEY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 139-140
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) should participate in post-graduate or continuous education to update and advance their knowledge and skills. This can improve patient outcomes and increase quality of care.1 EULAR aims to become a leading provider of postgraduate education for HPRs.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to evaluate the current motivations for participating in postgraduate education of HPRs, identify barriers and facilitators for participation in postgraduate education, and evaluate participation in the current educational offerings of EULAR for HPRs across Europe.MethodsAn online survey was developed and distributed in collaboration with the EULAR Standing Committee of Education and Training (ESCET) and the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS). The questionnaire was translated by national HPR representatives in 24 languages to cover the 25 national member organisations. Barriers were assessed using 5-point Likert scales, higher scores representing higher barriers. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. In addition, we ran the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) on the answers to the open questions. LDA is an unsupervised probabilistic topic modelling technique that extracts the meanings of a pre-defined number of topics. Design of the survey and reporting of results were done according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).ResultsThe online questionnaire was accessed 3,589 times but only 667 complete responses were recorded. HPRs from 34 European countries responded to the survey; 80% of whom were women. The highest-ranked educational need was prevention, including lifestyle interventions and professional development. Although EULAR was well known among HPRs, only 32.1% of HPRs in adult care and 18.6% of HPRs in paediatric care have ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology (Table 1 A).Table 1.A: Feedback on EULAR. Data are presented separately for HPRs in adult and paediatric care; except for the filter questions, no mandatory questions were included in the survey. To clarify the number of responses per question, the number of valid answers for each question was reported.VariablesHPRs in adult careHPRs in paediatric careHave you ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology?61443 I am not sure, n(%)62 (10.1%)7 (16.3%) No, n(%)355 (57.8%)28 (65.1%) Yes, n(%)197 (32.1%)8 (18.6%)Are you aware of courses offered by the EULAR School of Rheumatology? (sub question)1978 I am not sure, n(%)30 (15.2%)2 (25.0%) No, n(%)63 (32.0%)5 (62.5%) Yes, n(%)104 (52.8%)1 (12.5%)Have you ever attended one of the EULAR School of Rheumatology courses? (sub question)1031 I am not sure, n(%)1 (1.0%)0 No, n(%)47 (45.6%)0 Yes, n(%)55 (53.4%)1 (100%)Have you ever participated in a EULAR annual congress meeting?61843 I am not sure, n(%)11 (1.8%)0 No, n(%)457 (73.9%)39 (90.7%) Yes, n(%)150 (24.3%)4 (9.3%)The main barriers to participation in EULAR’s educational offerings were identified by HPRs in adult care and in paediatric care (respectively) as: the unfamiliarity with the course content (3.48 [±1.50]; 3.92 [±1.46]), the associated costs (3.44 [±1.35]; 3.69 [±1.28]) and English language (2.59 [±1.50]; 2.80 [±1.34]).ConclusionEULAR is well-known by HPRs in Europe, however, awareness of educational offerings is low and barriers to participation are numerous. To become the leading provider of postgraduate training by 2023, EULAR could use a “franchise” model that can be tailored to local conditions. This could be achieved by strengthening national organizations by actively involving them in the development of training programs and disseminating these programs and offerings through their networks.References[1]World Health Organization. Health workforce: Education and training: World Health Organization; 2019 [Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/education/en/ accessed November, 2019 2019.Disclosure of InterestsLisa Sperl: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche, Margaret Renn Andrews: None declared, Mathilda Bjork: None declared, Carina Boström: None declared, Jeannette Cappon: None declared, Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, Annette de Thurah: None declared, Andrea Domjan: None declared, Razvan Dragoi Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees last year from: Pfizer, Elly Lilly, Sandoz, Abbvie, Secom, EwoPharma, Fernando Estevez-Lopez: None declared, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira: None declared, George E. Fragoulis: None declared, Jolanta Grygielska: None declared, Katti Korve: None declared, Marja Leena Kukkurainen: None declared, Christel Madelaine-Bonjour: None declared, Andrea Marques: None declared, Jorit Meesters: None declared, Rikke Helene Moe: None declared, Ellen Moholt: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Claudia Naimer-Stach: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared, Polina Pchelnikova: None declared, Jette Primdahl: None declared, Polina Putrik: None declared, Anne-Kathrin Rausch Osthoff: None declared, Hana Smucrova: None declared, Sinisa Stefanac: None declared, Marco Testa: None declared, Leti van Bodegom-Vos: None declared, Wilfred Peter: None declared, Heidi A. Zangi: None declared, Olena Zimba: None declared, T.P.M. Vliet Vlieland: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Ritschl, Valentin, et al.
(författare)
-
Educational readiness among health professionals in rheumatology: low awareness of EULAR offerings and unfamiliarity with the course content as major barriers-results of a EULAR-funded European survey
- 2023
-
Ingår i: RMD Open. - : BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2056-5933. ; 9:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundOngoing education of health professionals in rheumatology (HPR) is critical for high-quality care. An essential factor is education readiness and a high quality of educational offerings. We explored which factors contributed to education readiness and investigated currently offered postgraduate education, including the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) offerings.Methods and participantsWe developed an online questionnaire, translated it into 24 languages and distributed it in 30 European countries. We used natural language processing and the Latent Dirichlet Allocation to analyse the qualitative experiences of the participants as well as descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression to determine factors influencing postgraduate educational readiness. Reporting followed the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys guideline.ResultsThe questionnaire was accessed 3589 times, and 667 complete responses from 34 European countries were recorded. The highest educational needs were professional development, prevention and lifestyle intervention. Older age, more working experience in rheumatology and higher education levels were positively associated with higher postgraduate educational readiness. While more than half of the HPR were familiar with EULAR as an association and the respondents reported an increased interest in the content of the educational offerings, the courses and the annual congress were poorly attended due to a lack of awareness, comparatively high costs and language barriers.ConclusionsTo promote the uptake of EULAR educational offerings, attention is needed to increase awareness among national organisations, offer accessible participation costs, and address language barriers.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Seidler, Y, et al.
(författare)
-
KNOWING WHAT TO DO WITH THE DATA - A QUALITATIVE STUDY ON CHALLENGES OF USING SMARTPHONE-BASED EPROS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 1081-1081
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has a long tradition in rheumatology, and PRO measurement is included in many composite indices evaluating disease progression and treatment response [1]. However, little is known about patients´ and health professionals´ (HPs) perceptions of using digitally collected PROs, the so-called ePROs, with a personal smartphone app.ObjectivesTo identify main challenges in utilising ePROs for management and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from patients’ and HPs’ perspectives.MethodsWe interviewed 25 people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 17 HPs (nurses, rheumatologists, and physiotherapists) from Austria and Denmark. We used the RheumaBuddy app as a practical example to illustrate the digital data collection and the feedback that patients would get from entering their self-reported outcomes. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. We applied a qualitative thematic analysis to identify major themes using a procedure of rigorous coding. Analysis was done by two researchers, and conflicts were solved by consensus. Ethical approval was obtained in both countries.ResultsThree main themes emerged: 1) Being simple yet comprehensive; 2) Resources to interpret, use and act upon the collected data; and 3) Being reminded of the disease. Within the first theme, many valued the intuitiveness and simplicity of ePROs, especially when used as a monitoring tool in between clinical visits. HPs were concerned about not to overwhelm the patients with too many questions. On the other hand, the short ePROs asked in the app were not comprehensive enough to capture psychosocial and lifestyle aspects of the disease which were considered important both by patients and HPs. Within the second theme, patients and HPs expressed that ePROs could be the basis for shared decision making. Nevertheless, some patients had clearer ideas on making use of the feedback they could get from their self-reported data than the others. Participants from Denmark, who experienced a higher level of digital health maturity in official institutions, expressed more proactive use of the data than participants from Austria who were on average younger than their Danish counterparts. One patient in Austria even asserted having no idea what to do with the collected data but believed that the “doctor will make good use of it”. HPs in both countries, however, indicated that they needed more resources, skills, and time to make sense of the ePRO data and act accordingly. Under the third theme, patients considered the collection of ePROs to be very important when pain and disease activity were high. HPs, on the other hand, were more concerned that the regular collection of ePROs might constantly remind patients that they are living with the disease.ConclusionThe potential adoption of ePROs in practice depends on both patients and HPs’ motivations and ideas to use the feedback they would get from the collected data. This might be influenced by the level of digital health maturity of a country, as well as available resources. In addition, ePROs need to be intuitive and simple, but at the same time comprehensive and reliable enough so that they can be used for shared decision making. Challenges remain for the ePROs to be used as supporting and empowering tools, and not as reminders of the disease and pain.Table 1.Demographic data of the participants (N=42)DemographicAustriaDenmarkTotalDataPatientHPPatientHPPatientHPN14101172517Women (%)10(71)6(60)7(64)5(71)17(68)11(65)Men (%)4(29)4(40)4(36)2(29)8(32)6(35)AgeMean (Range)54(30-76)41(29-63)65(37-77)47(31-59)60(30-77)44(29-63)References[1]T Stamm, I Parodis, and P Studenic. Patient-reported outcomes with anifrolumab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, Lancet Rheumatol, (2022), in Press.AcknowledgementsWe would like to express our particular thank you to all those who have taken part in the interview study and for their valuable inputs.Disclosure of InterestsYuki Seidler: None declared, Tanja Schjødt Jørgensen Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly., Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Novartis, UCB, Biogen and Eli Lilly, Paul Studenic: None declared, Helga Radner Speakers bureau: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Consultant of: Gilead, Merck Sharp, Pfizer, Abbvie, Thomas Nygaard: None declared, Nadine Weibrecht: None declared, Nikolas Popper Speakers bureau: Roche, Consultant of: dwh GmbH (as CSO), Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals, Grant/research support from: IIT research grants from Novo, UCB, Eli Lilly; Novartis and Abbvie, Tanita-Christina Wilhelmer: None declared, James Rickmann: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda., Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme., Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
