Evolving and evaluating the OMERACT fellows program: insights and implications from OMERACT 2023 fellows.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution of the OMERACT Fellows Program (OM FP) and to evaluate the innovative changes implemented in the 2023 program. METHODS: The OM FP, the first of its kind in global rheumatology, was developed in 2000 to mentor early career researchers in methods and processes for reaching evidence-driven consensus for outcome measures in clinical studies. The OM FP has evolved through continuing iterations of face to face and online feedback. Key new features delivered in 2023 included e-learning modules, virtual introductory pre-meetings, increased networking with Patient Research Partners (PRPs), learning opportunities to give and receive personal feedback, ongoing performance feedback during the meeting from Fellow peers, PRPs, senior OMERACTers (members of the OMERACT community) and Emerging Leader mentors, involvement in pitching promotions, two-minute Lightning Talks in a plenary session and an embedded poster tour. An online survey was distributed after the meeting to evaluate the program. RESULTS: OM FP has included 208 fellows from 16 countries across 4 continents covering 47 different aspects of rheumatology outcomes since its inception. Over 50 % have remained engaged with OMERACT work. In 2023, 18 Fellows attended and 15 (83 %) completed the post-meeting survey. A dedicated OM FP was deemed important by all respondents, and 93 % would attend the meeting in future. The PRP/Fellow Connection Carousel and Lightning Talks were rated exceptional by 93 %. Key components to improve included clarification of expectations, overall workload, the Emerging Leaders Mentoring Program, and the content and duration of daily summary sessions. CONCLUSION: The innovations in the 2023 OM FP were well received by the majority of participants and supports early career rheumatology researchers to develop collaborations, skills and expertise in outcome measurement. Implementation of feedback from Fellows will enhance the program for future meetings, continuing to facilitate learning and succession planning within OMERACT.

Further refinement of the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure using classical test theory and item response theory.

BACKGROUND: Existing dermatology-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) do not fully capture the substantial physical, psychological and social impact of dermatological conditions on patients' lives and are not recommended for use according to the COSMIN criteria. Most were developed with insufficient patient involvement and relied on classical psychometric methods. We are developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure for use in research and clinical practice in partnership with patients. OBJECTIVES: To examine the factor structure of PRIDD, determine the definitive selection of items for each subscale, and establish structural validity and internal consistency through classical and modern psychometric methods. METHODS: Two cross-sectional online surveys were conducted. Adults (≥ 18 years) worldwide living with a dermatological condition were recruited through the membership network of the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations (GlobalSkin). They completed the PRIDD questionnaire and a demographics questionnaire via an online survey. We examined missing data and distribution of scores for each item. The factor structure was assessed using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis (Survey 1). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach's α. Rasch measurement theory analyses were conducted, including iterative assessment of rating scale function, fit to the Rasch model, unidimensionality, reliability, local dependence, targeting and differential item functioning (DIF) (Surveys 1 and 2). RESULTS: Participants in Surveys 1 and 2 numbered 483 and 504 people, respectively. All items had ≤ 3% missing scores and all five response options were used. A four-factor model showed the best fit. PRIDD and all four subscales were internally consistent but showed some misfit to the Rasch measurement model. Adjustments were made to rectify disordered thresholds, remove misfitting items, local dependency and DIF, and improve targeting. The resulting 16-item version and subscales fit the Rasch model, showed no local dependency or DIF at the test level, and were well targeted. CONCLUSIONS: This field test study produced the final PRIDD measure, consisting of 16 items across four domains. The data triangulated and refined the conceptual framework of impact and provide evidence of PRIDD's structural validity and internal consistency. The final step in the development and validation of the PRIDD measure is to test the remaining measurement properties.

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. METHODS: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. RESULTS: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. CONCLUSION: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of guided self-help versus individual cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for post-traumatic stress disorder (RAPID).

Background: Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective: To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design: Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom's National Health Service. Participants: One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions: Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results: Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years -0.04 (95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations: The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions: Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work: Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is a common, disabling condition that can occur following major traumatic events. Typical symptoms include distressing reliving, avoidance of reminders and feeling a current sense of threat. First-choice treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder are individual, face-to-face talking treatments, of 12­16 hours duration, including cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus. If equally effective treatments could be developed that take less time and can be largely undertaken in a flexible manner at home, this would improve accessibility, reduce waiting times and hence the burden of disease. RAPID was a randomised controlled trial using a web-based programme called Spring. The aim was to determine if trauma-focused guided self-help provided a faster and cheaper treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder than first-choice face-to-face therapy, while being equally effective. Guided self-help using Spring is delivered through eight steps. A therapist provides a 1-hour introductory meeting followed by four further, fortnightly sessions of 30 minutes each and four brief (around 5 minutes) telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. At each session, the therapist reviews progress and guides the client through the programme, offering continued support, monitoring, motivation and problem-solving. One hundred and ninety-six people with post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event took part in the study. Guided self-help using Spring was found to be equally effective to first-choice face-to-face therapy at reducing post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 16 weeks. Very noticeable improvements were maintained at 52 weeks post-randomisation in both groups, when most results were inconclusive but in favour of face-to-face therapy. Guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver and appeared to be well-tolerated. It is noteworthy that not everyone benefitted from guided self-help using Spring, highlighting the importance of considering it on a person-by-person basis, and personalising interventions. But, the RAPID trial has demonstrated that guided self-help using Spring provides a low-intensity treatment option for people with post-traumatic stress disorder that is ready to be implemented in the National Health Service.

Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Guided, internet based, cognitive behavioural therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID).

OBJECTIVE: To determine if guided internet based cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma focus (CBT-TF) is non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to one traumatic event. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (RAPID). SETTING: Primary and secondary mental health settings across the UK's NHS. PARTICIPANTS: 196 adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate PTSD were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two interventions, with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% retention at 52 weeks. 19 participants and 10 therapists were purposively sampled and interviewed for evaluation of the process. INTERVENTIONS: Up to 12 face-to-face, manual based, individual CBT-TF sessions, each lasting 60-90 minutes; or guided internet based CBT-TF with an eight step online programme, with up to three hours of contact with a therapist and four brief telephone calls or email contacts between sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) at 16 weeks after randomisation (diagnosis of PTSD based on the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5). Secondary outcomes included severity of PTSD symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression and anxiety, use of alcohol, and perceived social support at 16 and 52 weeks after randomisation. RESULTS: Non-inferiority was found at the primary endpoint of 16 weeks on the CAPS-5 (mean difference 1.01, one sided 95% confidence interval -∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority P=0.012). Improvements in CAPS-5 score of more than 60% in the two groups were maintained at 52 weeks, but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF at this time point (3.20, -∞ to 6.00, P=0.15). Guided internet based CBT-TF was significantly (P<0.001) cheaper than face-to-face CBT-TF and seemed to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. The main themes of the qualitative analysis were facilitators and barriers to engagement with guided internet based CBT-TF, treatment outcomes, and considerations for its future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Guided internet based CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD to one traumatic event was non-inferior to individual face-to-face CBT-TF and should be considered a first line treatment for people with this condition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13697710.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity: a systematic review following COSMIN guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires regular assessment of disease activity (DA). All standard RA DA measurement instruments require joint counts to be undertaken by a healthcare professional with/without a blood test. Few healthcare providers have the capacity to assess patients as frequently as stipulated by guidelines. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) could be an efficient and informative way to assess RA DA, which is highlighted by the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, as most consultations are remote rather than face-to-face. We aimed to assess all PROMs for RA DA against the internationally recognised COSMIN guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations to select the most suitable PROMs. METHODS: Review registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020176176. The search strategy was based on a previous similar systematic review and expanded to include all articles up to January 2019. All identified articles were rated by two independent assessors following the COSMIN guidelines. RESULTS: 668 abstracts were identified, with 10 articles included. A further 21 were identified from a previous review. Ten PROMs were identified. There was insufficient evidence to place any of the identified PROMs into recommendation for use category A due to lack of evidence for content validity, as stipulated by the COSMIN guidelines. CONCLUSION: Lack of evidence of content validity limits suitable PROM selection, therefore none can be recommended for use. It is acknowledged that all included PROMs were developed before the COSMIN guidelines were published. Future research on PROMs for RA DA must provide evidence of content validity.

Urinary Stones and Intervention Quality of Life (USIQoL): Development and Validation of a New Core Universal Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Urinary Calculi.

BACKGROUND: Urolithiasis has a significant impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). OBJECTIVE: To develop a core patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) using modern psychometric methods to quantify the impact of urolithiasis and different treatments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with urinary calculi, attending urology departments, covering all index categories and treatment spectrum, participated during different development phases. The pilot instrument was created from potential items (phases 1 and 2) within the conceptual framework. The instrument was pretested (phase 3) and then underwent psychometric evaluation in two parts (phases 4 and 5). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The validity and reliability of the new PROM were assessed using Rasch measurement theory (RUMM 2030 statistical software) and traditional analyses. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 683 patients (median age 51 yr, range 18-92 yr) participated during different phases. The initial 60-item draft (five scales) was completed by 212 patients (phase 4). A revised 25-item draft was produced after removal of unstable items. In the second field test, the revised version was evaluated by 369 patients. This led to the final Urinary Stones and Intervention Quality of Life (USIQoL; 15 items) with summated logit scores. The PROM includes three scales: pain with physical health (six items), psychosocial health (seven items) and work performance (two items). Lower scores indicate better outcomes. Results demonstrate that USIQoL is reliable (r ≥ 0.8) and internally consistent (α ≥ 0.7), and has good construct validity (good hypothesised correlations, r > 0.3) and satisfactory sensitivity to change (p < 0.01). All scales demonstrated unidimensionality with good item fit and person separation indices. A limitation is that USIQoL was developed in the English language within the UK population. CONCLUSIONS: USIQoL is a short, unidimensional, valid, and reliable PROM for assessing the HRQoL impact of urinary calculi and treatments. It is expected to serve as a core PROM across the entire spectrum of urolithiasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: Kidney stones are a common condition for which various treatment options are available. The condition and treatments have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life. This can be measured objectively using a valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed using modern methods. We have developed a PROM that provides helpful and accurate measurement useful for all stakeholders.

Adaptive Trial Designs in Rheumatology: Report from the OMERACT Special Interest Group.

OBJECTIVE: Adaptive trial design was developed initially for oncology to improve trial efficiency. If optimized for rheumatology, it may improve trial efficiency by reducing sample size and time. METHODS: A systematic review assessed design of phase II clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: Fifty-six trials were reviewed. Most trials had 4 groups (1 control and 3 intervention), with an average group size of 34 patients. American College of Rheumatology 20 measured at 16 weeks was the most commonly used primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: The next step is to undertake a systematic review of adaptive designs used in early-phase trials in nonrheumatic conditions.

Cardiovascular risk factors predicting cardiac events are different in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis.

OBJECTIVES: Increased cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is well established. Examining traditional cardiovascular risk factors alone underestimates cardiovascular risk in RA. Systematic inflammation, measured by erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein is also a major risk factor. However, the contribution of traditional cardiovascular risk factors (such as obesity and hyperlipidaemia) compared to inflammation is uncertain in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and RA. We examine the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) among patients with RA, PsA psoriasis, and controls adjusting for risk factors, inflammation and disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment, to better define cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Using the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank, comprising routinely collected Welsh health data from 1999 to 2013, the incidence and first occurrence of a MACE in individuals with RA (n = 8650), PsA (n = 2128) and psoriasis (n = 24,630) compared to controls (n = 11,87,706) was investigated. RESULTS: Traditional cardiovascular risk factors are higher in RA, PsA and psoriasis than controls. After adjusting for these factors, additional cardiovascular risk was only significantly increased in female RA patients (HR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0-1.7; p = 0.05) and psoriasis (HR = 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0-1.4; p = 0.02) but not statistically significant for PsA (HR = 1.5; 95% CI: 0.9-2.5; p = 0.13). ESR and CRP were increased in patients with RA but not in patients with psoriasis. CONCLUSION: Additional increased cardiovascular risk was observed in female RA and psoriasis but not PsA. Systematic inflammation is higher in RA but not psoriasis, indicating that there are varying mediators of cardiovascular risk across these conditions.

Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials.

OBJECTIVE: Adaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics. METHODS: From an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured. RESULT: One early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: The one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.

Perineural local anaesthetic catheter after major lower limb amputation trial (PLACEMENT): study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pain after major lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a significant problem. A perineural catheter (PNC) can be placed adjacent to the major nerve at the time of amputation with a continuous local anaesthetic infusion given postoperatively to try and reduce pain. Although low-quality observational data suggest that PNC usage reduces postoperative opioid requirements, there are limited data regarding its effect on pain. The aim of PLACEMENT is to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial to assess the impact of a PNC with continuous local anaesthetic infusion, inserted at the time of amputation, on short and medium-term postoperative outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: Fifty patients undergoing a major lower limb amputation (below or above the knee) for PAD will be recruited from two centres. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive standard postoperative analgesia, with or without insertion of a PNC and local anaesthetic infusion for the first 5 postoperative days. Outcome data will be captured for the first 5 days, including pain scores (primary outcome, captured three times a day), opioid use, nausea or vomiting, itching, dizziness and complications. Patients will be contacted 2 and 6 months after surgery to assess quality of life, phantom limb pain, chronic stump pain and total healthcare costs. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with at least 10 patients (dependent on saturation of analytic themes on preliminary coding) purposefully sampled to achieve variation in site and study arm. Interviews will explore patients' perception of post-amputation pain and its treatment, and experience of study processes. Semi-structured interviews with 5-10 health professionals will explore feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability of the study. Data from this pilot will be used to assess feasibility of, and estimate parameters to calculate the sample size for an effectiveness trial. Full ethical approval has been granted (Wales Research Ethics Committee 3 reference number 16/WA/0353). DISCUSSION: PLACEMENT will be the first study to explore the feasibility of running an effectiveness trial on PNC usage for postoperative pain in amputees, and provide parameters to calculate the appropriate sample size for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN85710690 . Registered on 21 October 2016. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 2016-003544-37. Registered on 24 August 2016.

Supporting shared decision making using an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee in an interface musculoskeletal clinic: A stepped wedge trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether introducing tools, specifically designed for use in clinical encounters, namely Option Grids, into a clinical practice setting leads to higher levels of shared decision making. METHODS: A stepped wedge trial design where 6 physiotherapists at an interface clinic in Oldham, UK, were sequentially instructed in how to use an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Patients with suspected or confirmed osteoarthritis of the knee were recruited, six per clinician prior to instruction, and six per clinician afterwards. We measured shared decision making, patient knowledge, and readiness to decide. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were recruited; 36 were allocated to the intervention group. There was an 8.4 point (95% CI 4.4 to 12.2) increase in the Observer OPTION score (range 0-100) in the intervention group. The mean gain in knowledge was 0.9 points (score range 0-5, 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5). There was no increase in encounter duration. CONCLUSION: Shared decision making increased when clinicians used the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tools designed to support collaboration and deliberation about treatment options lead to increased levels of shared decision making.

Training practitioners to deliver opportunistic multiple behaviour change counselling in primary care: a cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of training primary care health professionals in behaviour change counselling on the proportion of patients self reporting change in four risk behaviours (smoking, alcohol use, exercise, and healthy eating). DESIGN: Cluster randomised trial with general practices as the unit of randomisation. SETTING: General practices in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 53 general practitioners and practice nurses from 27 general practices (one each at all but one practice) recruited 1827 patients who screened positive for at least one risky behaviour. INTERVENTION: Behaviour change counselling was developed from motivational interviewing to enable clinicians to enhance patients' motivation to change health related behaviour. Clinicians were trained using a blended learning programme called Talking Lifestyles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who reported making beneficial changes in at least one of the four risky behaviours at three months. RESULTS: 1308 patients from 13 intervention and 1496 from 14 control practices were approached: 76% and 72% respectively agreed to participate, with 831 (84%) and 996 (92%) respectively screening eligible for an intervention. There was no effect on the primary outcome (beneficial change in behaviour) at three months (362 (44%) v 404 (41%), odds ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.39)) or on biochemical or biometric measures at 12 months. More patients who had consulted with trained clinicians recalled consultation discussion about a health behaviour (724/795 (91%) v 531/966 (55%), odds ratio 12.44 (5.85 to 26.46)) and intended to change (599/831 (72%) v 491/996 (49%), odds ratio 2.88 (2.05 to 4.05)). More intervention practice patients reported making an attempt to change (328 (39%) v 317 (32%), odds ratio 1.40 (1.15 to 1.70)), a sustained behaviour change at three months (288 (35%) v 280 (28%), odds ratio 1.36 (1.11 to 1.65)), and reported slightly greater improvements in healthy eating at three and 12 months, plus improved activity at 12 months. Training cost £1597 per practice. DISCUSSION: Training primary care clinicians in behaviour change counselling using a brief blended learning programme did not increase patients reported beneficial behaviour change at three months or improve biometric and a biochemical measure at 12 months, but it did increase patients' recollection of discussing behaviour change with their clinicians, intentions to change, attempts to change, and perceptions of having made a lasting change at three months. Enduring behaviour change and improvements in biometric measures are unlikely after a single routine consultation with a clinician trained in behaviour change counselling without additional intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 22495456.

The effect of the Talking Diabetes consulting skills intervention on glycaemic control and quality of life in children with type 1 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial (DEPICTED study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness on glycaemic control of a training programme in consultation skills for paediatric diabetes teams. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 26 UK secondary and tertiary care paediatric diabetes services. PARTICIPANTS: 79 healthcare practitioners (13 teams) trained in the intervention (359 young people with type 1 diabetes aged 4-15 years and their main carers) and 13 teams allocated to the control group (334 children and their main carers). INTERVENTION: Talking Diabetes programme, which promotes shared agenda setting and guiding communication style, through flexible menu of consultation strategies to support patient led behaviour change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) level one year after training. Secondary outcomes were clinical measures (hypoglycaemic episodes, body mass index, insulin regimen), general and diabetes specific quality of life, self reported and proxy reported self care and enablement, perceptions of the diabetes team, self reported and carer reported importance of, and confidence in, undertaking diabetes self management measured over one year. Analysis was by intention to treat. An integrated process evaluation included audio recording a sample of 86 routine consultations to assess skills shortly after training (intervention group) and at one year follow-up (intervention and control group). Two key domains of skill assessment were use of the guiding communication style and shared agenda setting. RESULTS: 660/693 patients (95.2%) provided blood samples at follow-up. Training diabetes care teams had no effect on HbA(1c) levels (intervention effect 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04, P=0.5), even after adjusting for age and sex of the participants. At follow-up, trained staff (n=29) were more capable than controls (n=29) in guiding (difference in means 1.14, P<0.001) and agenda setting (difference in proportions 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.62). Although skills waned over time for the trained practitioners, the reduction was not significant for either guiding (difference in means -0.33, P=0.128) or use of agenda setting (difference in proportions -0.20, -0.42 to 0.05). 390 patients (56%) and 441 carers (64%) completed follow-up questionnaires. Some aspects of diabetes specific quality of life improved in controls: reduced problems with treatment barriers (mean difference -4.6, 95% confidence interval -8.5 to -0.6, P=0.03) and with treatment adherence (-3.1, -6.3 to -0.01, P=0.05). Short term ability to cope with diabetes increased in patients in intervention clinics (10.4, 0.5 to 20.4, P=0.04). Carers in the intervention arm reported greater excitement about clinic visits (1.9, 1.05 to 3.43, P=0.03) and improved continuity of care (0.2, 0.1 to 0.3, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Improving glycaemic control in children attending specialist diabetes clinics may not be possible through brief, team-wide training in consultation skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61568050.