Factors related to intentional non-initiation of bisphosphonate treatment in patients with a high fracture risk in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to osteoporosis treatment is crucial for good treatment effects. However, adherence has been shown to be poor and a substantial part of the patients don't even initiate treatment. This study aimed to gain insight into the considerations of both osteoporosis patients and general practitioners (GP) concerning intentional non-initiation of bisphosphonate treatment. METHODS: Osteoporosis patients and GPs were recruited from the SALT Osteoporosis Study and a transmural fracture liaison service, both carried out in the Netherlands. Using questionnaires, we identified non-starters and starters of bisphosphonate treatment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a detailed overview of all considerations until saturation of the data was reached. Starters were asked to reflect on the considerations that were brought forward by the non-starters. Interviews were open coded and the codes were classified into main themes and subthemes using an inductive approach. RESULTS: 16 non-starters, 10 starters, and 13 GPs were interviewed. We identified three main themes: insufficient medical advice, attitudes towards medication use including concerns about side effects, and disease awareness. From patients' as well as GPs' perspective, insufficient or ambiguous information from the GP influenced the decision of the non-starters to not start bisphosphonates. In contrast, starters were either properly informed, or they collected information themselves. Patients' aversion towards medication, fear of side effects, and a low risk perception also contributed to not starting the medication, whereas starters were aware of their fracture risk and were confident of the outcome of the treatment. Concerns about osteoporosis treatment and its side effects were also expressed by several GPs. Some GPs appeared to have a limited understanding of the current osteoporosis guidelines and the indications for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Many reasons we found for not starting bisphosphonate treatment were related to the patients or the GPs themselves being insufficiently informed. Attitudes of the GPs were shown to play a role in the decision of patients not to start treatment. Interventions need to be developed that are aimed at GPs, and at education of patients.

Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave.

BACKGROUND: Work disability has serious consequences for individuals as well as society. It is possible to facilitate resumption of work by reducing barriers to return to work (RTW) and promoting collaboration with key stakeholders. This review was first published in 2009 and has now been updated to include studies published up to February 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions in preventing work disability among sick-listed workers, when compared to usual care or clinical interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Work Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases on 2 February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of workplace interventions that aimed to improve RTW for disabled workers. We only included studies where RTW or conversely sickness absence was reported as a continuous outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the studies. We performed meta-analysis where possible, and we assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE criteria. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs with 1897 workers. Eight studies included workers with musculoskeletal disorders, five workers with mental health problems, and one workers with cancer. We judged six studies to have low risk of bias for the outcome sickness absence.Workplace interventions significantly improved time until first RTW compared to usual care, moderate-quality evidence (hazard ratio (HR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.01). Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time to lasting RTW compared to usual care, very low-quality evidence (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.57). The effect on cumulative duration of sickness absence showed a mean difference of -33.33 (95% CI -49.54 to -17.12), favouring the workplace intervention, high-quality evidence. One study assessed recurrences of sick leave, and favoured usual care, moderate-quality evidence (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82). Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results.In subgroup analyses, we found that workplace interventions reduced time to first and lasting RTW among workers with musculoskeletal disorders more than usual care (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.82 and HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.29, respectively; both moderate-quality evidence). In studies of workers with musculoskeletal disorders, pain also improved (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.26, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.06), as well as functional status (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.08). In studies of workers with mental health problems, there was a significant improvement in time until first RTW (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.41 to 4.95), but no considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.17). One study of workers with cancer did not find a considerable reduction in lasting RTW (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.47).In another subgroup analysis, we did not find evidence that offering a workplace intervention in combination with a cognitive behavioural intervention (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.93) is considerably more effective than offering a workplace intervention alone (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.82, test for subgroup differences P = 0.17).Workplace interventions did not considerably reduce time until first RTW compared with a clinical intervention in workers with mental health problems in one study (HR 2.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.95, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to first RTW, high-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce cumulative duration of sickness absence, very low-quality evidence that workplace interventions reduce time to lasting RTW, and moderate-quality evidence that workplace interventions increase recurrences of sick leave. Overall, the effectiveness of workplace interventions on work disability showed varying results. Workplace interventions reduce time to RTW and improve pain and functional status in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of a considerable effect of workplace interventions on time to RTW in workers with mental health problems or cancer.We found moderate-quality evidence to support workplace interventions for workers with musculoskeletal disorders. The quality of the evidence on the effectiveness of workplace interventions for workers with mental health problems and cancer is low, and results do not show an effect of workplace interventions for these workers. Future research should expand the range of health conditions evaluated with high-quality studies.

Productivity at work and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine which combination of personal, disease-related and environmental factors is best associated with at-work productivity loss in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to determine whether at-work productivity loss is associated with the quality of life for these patients. METHODS: This study is based on cross-sectional data. Patients completed a questionnaire with personal, disease-related and environmental factors (related to the work environment), and clinical characteristics were obtained from patient medical records. At-work productivity loss was measured with the Work Limitations Questionnaire, and quality of life with the RAND 36. Using linear regression analyses, a multivariate model was built containing the combination of factors best associated with at-work productivity loss. This model was cross-validated internally. We furthermore determined whether at-work productivity loss was associated with quality of life using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: We found that at-work productivity loss was associated with workers who had poorer mental health, more physical role limitations, were ever treated with a biological therapeutic medication, were not satisfied with their work, and had more work instability (R(2) = 0.50 and R(2) following cross-validation was 0.32). We found that at-work productivity loss was negatively associated with health-related quality of life, especially with dimensions of mental health, physical role limitations, and pain. CONCLUSIONS: We found that at-work productivity loss was associated with personal, work-related, and clinical factors. Although our study results should be interpreted with caution, they provide insight into patients with RA who are at risk for at-work productivity loss.

An intervention program with the aim to improve and maintain work productivity for workers with rheumatoid arthritis: design of a randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often experience restrictions in functioning at work and participation in employment. Strategies to maintain work productivity exist, but these interventions do not involve the actual workplace. Therefore the aim of this study is to investigate the (cost)effectiveness of an intervention program at the workplace on work productivity for workers with RA. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in specialized rheumatology treatment centers in or near Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Randomisation to either the control or the intervention group is performed at patient level. Both groups will receive care as usual by the rheumatologist, and patients in the intervention group will also take part in the intervention program. The intervention program consists of two components; integrated care, including a participatory workplace intervention. Integrated care involves a clinical occupational physician, who will act as care manager, to coordinate the care. The care manager has an intermediate role between clinical and occupational care. The participatory workplace intervention will be guided by an occupational therapist, and involves problem solving by the patient and the patients' supervisor. The aim of the workplace intervention is to achieve consensus between patient and supervisor concerning feasible solutions for the obstacles for functioning at work. Data collection will take place at baseline and after 6 and 12 months by means of a questionnaire. The primary outcome measure is work productivity, measured by hours lost from work due to presenteeism. Secondary outcome measures include sick leave, quality of life, pain and fatigue. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention program will be evaluated from the societal perspective. DISCUSSION: Usual care of primary and outpatient health services is not aimed at improving work productivity. Therefore it is desirable to develop interventions aimed at improving functioning at work. If the intervention program will be (cost)effective, substantial improvements in work productivity might be obtained among workers with RA at lower costs. Results are expected in 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR2886.

One-year Predictors of Presenteeism in Workers with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Disease-related Factors and Characteristics of General Health and Work.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affects adults of working age and leads to productivity losses because of presenteeism that results from limitations while at work. The aim of our study was to gain insight into disease-related factors, general health, and work characteristics as predictors of presenteeism in workers with RA. METHODS: Workers with RA (n = 150) recruited by rheumatologists completed questionnaires at baseline and after 1 year. Medical information was retrieved from patient records. Presenteeism was measured by the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Disease [28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), pain, fatigue], general health (mental, physical, deterioration of health), and work characteristics (work instability, social support, workload) were assessed as predictors of presenteeism after 1 year using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: Presenteeism was 4.0 h over a 2-week period based on an average work week of 28.7 hours. More RA-related disability (HAQ; B = -1.20, 95% CI -2.12 to -0.28), poorer mental health (B = -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01), and health deterioration over a 1-year period (B: -0.02, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.01) were associated with more presenteeism. Work characteristics were not associated with presenteeism. CONCLUSION: Disease-related factors and general health characteristics were significantly associated with presenteeism at 1-year followup, although the effects of the general health characteristics were considered not to be relevant. To reduce presenteeism and improve functioning at work, it is important to pay attention to reducing RA-related disability in addition to reducing disease activity. A broader perspective is needed and should also take into account the level of RA-related disability.

Effectiveness of an integrated care intervention on supervisor support and work functioning of workers with rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: In this manuscript, we evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention programme consisting of integrated care and a participatory workplace intervention on supervisor support, work instability and at-work productivity after 6 months of follow-up among workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial; we compared the intervention programme to usual care. Eligible patients were diagnosed with RA, had a paid job (> 8 h per week) and who experienced, at least, minor difficulties in work functioning. Supervisor support was measured with a subscale of the Job Content Questionnaire, work instability with the Work Instability Scale for RA, and at-work productivity with the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A beneficial effect of the intervention programme was found on supervisor support among 150 patients. Analyses revealed no effects on work instability and at-work productivity. CONCLUSION: We found a small positive effect of the intervention on supervisor support, but did not find any effects on work instability and at-work productivity loss. Future research should establish whether this significant but small increase in supervisor support leads to improved work functioning in the long run. This study shows clinicians that patients with RA are in need of efforts to support them in their work functioning. Implications for Rehabilitation Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease with a severe impact on work functioning, even when a patient is still working. It is important to involve the workplace when an intervention is put in place to support RA patients in their work participation. Supervisor support influences health outcomes of workers, and it is possible to improve supervisor support by an intervention which involves the workplace and supervisor.

An exploratory study of psychological and developmental issues facing HIV and AIDS affected adolescents living in a residential care facility.

OBJECTIVE: This article explores the psychological issues experienced by adolescents affected by HIV and living in a residential care facility. METHOD: This was a multi-method, exploratory study. Data were collected through one focus group discussion with adolescents at the residential care facility, individual interviews with caregivers and ethnographic observation. Data were obtained from a residential care facility for HIV affected and infected children and mothers in Gauteng. RESULTS: Findings suggest that for adolescents in this study, living in a residential care facility offered both opportunities and challenges. Adolescents at the facility enjoyed material and, to some extent, emotional support. Association with a facility known as a HIV and AIDS care facility, however, had a negative impact on the adolescents. Additionally, the lack of significant attachment figures, asserting their independence and challenging the authority and the expectations of the facility appeared to be significant developmental challenges. Adolescents reported experiencing a range of emotional and psychological problems, some of which were present before they arrived at the facility. CONCLUSION: Living in a care facility can be both a protective and a risk factor; additional studies on the availability and the impact of alternate forms of care are suggested.