EULAR recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners in rheumatology research: 2023 update.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2011 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient research partner (PRP) involvement in rheumatology research, the role of PRPs has evolved considerably. Therefore, an update of the 2011 recommendations was deemed necessary. METHODS: In accordance with the EULAR Standardised Operational Procedures, a task force comprising 13 researchers, 2 health professionals and 10 PRPs was convened. The process included an online task force meeting, a systematic literature review and an in-person second task force meeting to formulate overarching principles (OAPs) and recommendations. The level of agreement of task force members was assessed anonymously (0-10 scale). RESULTS: The task force developed five new OAPs, updated seven existing recommendations and formulated three new recommendations. The OAPs address the definition of a PRP, the contribution of PRPs, the role of informal caregivers, the added value of PRPs and the importance of trust and communication in collaborative research efforts. The recommendations address the research type and phases of PRP involvement, the recommended number of PRPs per project, the support necessary for PRPs, training of PRPs and acknowledgement of PRP contributions. New recommendations concern the benefits of support and guidance for researchers, the need for regular evaluation of the patient-researcher collaboration and the role of a designated coordinator to facilitate collaboration. Agreements within the task force were high and ranged between 9.16 and 9.96. CONCLUSION: The updated EULAR recommendations for PRP involvement are more substantially based on evidence. Together with added OAPs, they should serve as a guide for researchers and PRPs and will ultimately strengthen the involvement of PRPs in rheumatology research.

Providing multimedia information to children and young people increases recruitment to trials: pre-planned meta-analysis of SWATs.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials are often beset by problems with poor recruitment and retention. Information to support decisions on trial participation is usually provided as printed participant information sheets (PIS), which are often long, technical, and unappealing. Multimedia information (MMI), including animations and videos, may be a valuable alternative or complement to a PIS. The Trials Engagement in Children and Adolescents (TRECA) study compared MMI to PIS to investigate the effects on participant recruitment, retention, and quality of decision-making. METHODS: We undertook six SWATs (Study Within A Trial) within a series of host trials recruiting children and young people. Potential participants in the host trials were randomly allocated to receive MMI-only, PIS-only, or combined MMI + PIS. We recorded the rates of recruitment and retention (varying between 6 and 26 weeks post-randomisation) in each host trial. Potential participants approached about each host trial were asked to complete a nine-item Decision-Making Questionnaire (DMQ) to indicate their evaluation of the information and their reasons for participation/non-participation. Odds ratios were calculated and combined in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data from 3/6 SWATs for which it was possible were combined in a meta-analysis (n = 1758). Potential participants allocated to MMI-only were more likely to be recruited to the host trial than those allocated to PIS-only (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.05, 2.28; p = 0.03). Those allocated to combined MMI + PIS compared to PIS-only were no more likely to be recruited to the host trial (OR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.53, 1.50; p = 0.67). Providing MMI rather than PIS did not impact on DMQ scores. Once children and young people had been recruited to host trials, their trial retention rates did not differ according to intervention allocation. CONCLUSIONS: Providing MMI-only increased the trial recruitment rate compared to PIS-only but did not affect DMQ scores. Combined MMI + PIS instead of PIS had no effect on recruitment or retention. MMIs are a useful tool for trial recruitment in children and young people, and they could reduce trial recruitment periods.

Points to consider: EULAR-UEMS standards for the training of European rheumatologists.

BACKGROUND: Postgraduate rheumatology training programmes are already established at a national level in most European countries. However, previous work has highlighted a substantial level of heterogeneity in the organisation and, in part, content of programmes. OBJECTIVE: To define competences and standards of knowledge, skills and professional behaviours required for the training of rheumatologists. METHODS: A European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task force (TF) of 23 experts, including two members of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) section of rheumatology, was convened. The mapping phase consisted of the retrieval of key documents on specialty training in rheumatology and other related specialties across a broad set of international sources. The content of these documents was extracted and represented the foundation for the document draft that underwent several rounds of online discussion within the TF, and afterwards was also distributed to a broad group of stakeholders for collecting feedback. The list of generated competences was voted on during the TF meetings, while the level of agreement (LoA) with each statement was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: A total of 132 international training curricula were retrieved and extracted. In addition to the TF members, 253 stakeholders commented and voted on the competences through an online anonymous survey. The TF developed (1) an overarching framework indicating the areas that should be addressed during training, (2) 7 domains defining broad areas that rheumatology trainees should master by the end of the training programme, (3) 8 core themes defining the nuances of each domain and (4) 28 competences that trainees should acquire to cover each of the areas outlined in the overarching framework. A high LoA was achieved for all competences. CONCLUSION: These points to consider for EULAR-UEMS standards for the training of European rheumatologists are now defined. Their dissemination and use can hopefully contribute to harmonising training across European countries.

EULAR points to consider for therapeutic drug monitoring of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points-to-consider for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). METHODS: The points-to-consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standardised operation procedures by a multidisciplinary task force from eight European countries, based on a systematic literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence and strength of the points-to-consider were determined, and mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated using a 10-point rating scale. RESULTS: Six overarching principles and 13 points-to-consider were formulated. The level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and points-to-consider ranged from 8.4 to 9.9.The overarching principles define TDM and its subtypes, and reinforce the underlying pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles, which are relevant to all biopharmaceutical classes. The points-to-consider highlight the clinical utility of the measurement and interpretation of biopharmaceutical blood concentrations and antidrug antibodies in specific clinical scenarios, including factors that influence these parameters. In general, proactive use of TDM is not recommended but reactive TDM could be considered in certain clinical situations. An important factor limiting wider adoption of TDM is the lack of both high quality trials addressing effectiveness and safety of TDM and robust economic evaluation in patients with RMDs. Future research should focus on providing this evidence, as well as on further understanding of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of biopharmaceuticals. CONCLUSION: These points-to-consider are evidence-based and consensus-based statements for the use of TDM of biopharmaceuticals in inflammatory RMDs, addressing the clinical utility of TDM.

EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology.

BACKGROUND: Comparing treatment effectiveness over time in observational settings is hampered by several major threats, among them confounding and attrition bias. OBJECTIVES: To develop European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtC) when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research using observational data in rheumatology. METHODS: The PtC were developed using a three-step process according to the EULAR Standard Operating Procedures. Based on a systematic review of methods currently used in comparative effectiveness studies, the PtC were formulated through two in-person meetings of a multidisciplinary task force and a two-round online Delphi, using expert opinion and a simulation study. Finally, feedback from a larger audience was used to refine the PtC. Mean levels of agreement among the task force were calculated. RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated, addressing, in particular, potential biases relating to attrition or confounding by indication. Building on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines, these PtC insist on the definition of the baseline for analysis and treatment effectiveness. They also focus on the reasons for stopping treatment as an important consideration when assessing effectiveness. Finally, the PtC recommend providing key information on missingness patterns. CONCLUSION: To improve the reliability of an increasing number of real-world comparative effectiveness studies in rheumatology, special attention is required to reduce potential biases. Adherence to clear recommendations for the analysis and reporting of observational comparative effectiveness studies will improve the trustworthiness of their results.

2019 EULAR points to consider for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Striving for harmonisation of specialty training and excellence of care in rheumatology, the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) established a task force to develop points to consider (PtCs) for the assessment of competences during rheumatology specialty training. METHODS: A systematic literature review on the performance of methods for the assessment of competences in rheumatology specialty training was conducted. This was followed by focus groups in five selected countries to gather information on assessment practices and priorities. Combining the collected evidence with expert opinion, the PtCs were formulated by the multidisciplinary task force, including rheumatologists, medical educationalists, and people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The level of agreement (LoA) for each PtC was anonymously voted online. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and 10 PtCs were formulated. The overarching principles highlighted the importance of assessments being closely linked to the rheumatology training programme and protecting sufficient time and resources to ensure effective implementation. In the PtCs, two were related to overall assessment strategy (PtCs 1 and 5); three focused on formative assessment and portfolio (PtCs 2-4); three focused on the assessment of knowledge, skills or professionalism (PtCs 6-8); one focused on trainees at risk of failure (PtC 9); and one focused on training the trainers (PtC 10). The LoA (0-10) ranged from 8.75 to 9.9. CONCLUSION: These EULAR PtCs provide European guidance on assessment methods throughout rheumatology training programmes. These can be used to benchmark current practices and to develop future strategies, thereby fostering continuous improvement in rheumatology learning and, ultimately, in patient care.

EULAR/PReS standards and recommendations for the transitional care of young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases.

To develop standards and recommendations for transitional care for young people (YP) with juvenile-onset rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (jRMD). The consensus process involved the following: (1) establishing an international expert panel to include patients and representatives from multidisciplinary teams in adult and paediatric rheumatology; (2) a systematic review of published models of transitional care in jRMDs, potential standards and recommendations, strategies for implementation and tools to evaluate services and outcomes; (3) setting the framework, developing the process map and generating a first draft of standards and recommendations; (4) further iteration of recommendations; (5) establishing consensus recommendations with Delphi methodology and (6) establishing standards and quality indicators. The final consensus derived 12 specific recommendations for YP with jRMD focused on transitional care. These included: high-quality, multidisciplinary care starting in early adolescence; the integral role of a transition co-ordinator; transition policies and protocols; efficient communications; transfer documentation; an open electronic-based platform to access resources; appropriate training for paediatric and adult healthcare teams; secure funding to continue treatments and services into adult rheumatology and the need for increased evidence to inform best practice. These consensus-based recommendations inform strategies to reach optimal outcomes in transitional care for YP with jRMD based on available evidence and expert opinion. They need to be implemented in the context of individual countries, healthcare systems and regulatory frameworks.

Apps and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Adolescents' Use of Mobile Phone and Tablet Apps That Support Personal Management of Their Chronic or Long-Term Physical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of physical chronic or long-term conditions in adolescents aged 10-24 years is rising. Mobile phone and tablet mobile technologies featuring software program apps are widely used by these adolescents and their healthy peers for social networking or gaming. Apps are also used in health care to support personal condition management and they have considerable potential in this context. There is a growing body of literature on app use in health contexts, thereby making a systematic review of their effectiveness very timely. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of mobile apps designed to support adolescents' management of their physical chronic or long-term conditions. METHODS: We conducted a review of the English-language literature published since 2003 in five relevant bibliographical databases using key search terms. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts using data extraction and quality assessment tools. RESULTS: The search returned 1120 hits. Of the 19 eligible full-text papers, four met our review criteria, reporting one pilot randomized controlled trial and three pretest/post-test studies. Samples ranged from 4 to 18 participants, with a combined sample of 46 participants. The apps reported were targeted at type 1 diabetes, asthma, and cancer. Two papers provided data for calculating effect size. Heterogeneity in terms of study design, reported outcomes, follow-up times, participants' ages, and health conditions prevented meta-analyses. There was variation in whether adolescents received guidance in using the app or were solely responsible for navigating the app. Three studies reported some level of patient involvement in app design, development, and/or evaluation. Health professional involvement in the modelling stages of apps was reported in all studies, although it was not always clear whether specific clinical (as opposed to academic) expertise in working with adolescents was represented. The dearth of studies and the small overall sample size emphasizes the need for future studies of the development, evaluation, use, and effectiveness of mobile apps to support adolescents' personal management of their conditions. CONCLUSIONS: A key finding of the review is the paucity of evidence-based apps that exist, in contrast to the thousands of apps available on the app market that are not evidence-based or user or professional informed. Although we aimed to assess the effectiveness of apps, the dearth of studies meeting our criteria meant that we were unable to be conclusive in this regard. Based on the available evidence, apps may be considered feasible health interventions, but more studies involving larger sample sizes, and with patient and health professional input at all stages, are needed to determine apps' acceptability and effectiveness. This review provides valuable findings and paves the way for future rigorous development and evaluation of health apps for adolescents with chronic or long-term conditions.

OMERACT Core outcome measurement set for shared decision making in rheumatic and musculoskeletal conditions: a scoping review to identify candidate instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making (SDM) is a central tenet in rheumatic and musculoskeletal care. The lack of standardization regarding SDM instruments and outcomes in clinical trials threatens the comparative effectiveness of interventions. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) SDM Working Group is developing a Core Outcome Set for trials of SDM interventions in rheumatology and musculoskeletal health. The working group reached consensus on a Core Outcome Domain Set in 2020. The next step is to develop a Core Outcome Measurement Set through the OMERACT Filter 2.2. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review (PRISMA-ScR) to identify candidate instruments for the OMERACT Filter 2.2 We systematically reviewed five databases (Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Web of Science). An information specialist designed search strategies to identify all measurement instruments used in SDM studies in adults or children living with rheumatic or musculoskeletal diseases or their important others. Paired reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text articles. We extracted characteristics of all candidate instruments (e.g., measured construct, measurement properties). We classified candidate instruments and summarized evidence gaps with an adapted version of the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table. RESULTS: We found 14,464 citations, read 239 full text articles, and included 99 eligible studies. We identified 220 potential candidate instruments. The five most used measurement instruments were the Decisional Conflict Scale (traditional and low literacy versions) (n=38), the Hip/Knee-Decision Quality Instrument (n=20), the Decision Regret Scale (n=9), the Preparation for Decision Making Scale (n=8), and the CollaboRATE (n=8). Only 44 candidate instruments (20%) had any measurement properties reported by the included studies. Of these instruments, only 57% matched with at least one of the 7-criteria adapted SOMP table. CONCLUSION: We identified 220 candidate instruments used in the SDM literature amongst people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Our classification of instruments showed evidence gaps and inconsistent reporting of measurement properties. The next steps for the OMERACT SDM Working Group are to match candidate instruments with Core Domains, assess feasibility and review validation studies of measurement instruments in rheumatic diseases or other conditions. Development and validation of new instruments may be required for some Core Domains.

Analysing and reporting of observational data: a systematic review informing the EULAR points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the analysis and reporting of comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, informing European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology points to consider. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review searching Ovid MEDLINE for original articles comparing drug effectiveness in longitudinal observational studies, published in key rheumatology journals between 2008 and 2019. The extracted information focused on reporting and types of analyses. We evaluated if year of publication impacted results. RESULTS: From 9969 abstracts reviewed, 211 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Ten per cent of studies did not adjust for confounding factors. Some studies did not explain how they chose covariates for adjustment (9%), used bivariate screening (21%) and/or stepwise selection procedures (18%). Only 33% studies reported the number of patients lost to follow-up and 25% acknowledged attrition (drop-out or treatment cessation). To account for attrition, studies used non-responder imputation, followed by last observation carried forward (LOCF) and complete case (CC) analyses. Most studies did not report the number of missing data on covariates (83%), and when addressed, 49% used CC and 11% LOCF. Date of publication did not influence the results. CONCLUSION: Most studies did not acknowledge missing data and attrition, and a tenth did not adjust for any confounding factors. When attempting to account for them, several studies used methods which potentially increase bias (LOCF, CC analysis, bivariate screening…). This study shows that there is no improvement over the last decade, highlighting the need for recommendations for the assessment and reporting of comparative drug effectiveness in observational data in rheumatology.

Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Researchers test treatments to ensure these work and are safe. They do this by studying the effects that treatments have on patients by measuring outcomes, such as pain and quality of life. Often research teams measure different outcomes even though each team is studying the same condition. This makes it hard to compare the findings from different studies and it can reduce the accuracy of the treatment advice available to patients. Increasingly, researchers are tackling this problem by developing 'core outcome sets'. These are lists of outcomes that all researchers working on a given condition should measure in their studies. It is important that patients have a voice in the development of core outcome sets and children and young people are no exception. But their voices have rarely been heard when core outcome sets are developed. Researchers are trying to address this problem and make sure that core outcome sets are developed in ways that are suitable for children and young people. As a first step, we held two international workshops with children and young people to listen to their views. They emphasised the importance of motivating young people to participate in developing core outcome sets, making them feel valued, and making the development process more interactive, enjoyable and convenient. We hope this commentary will encourage researchers to include children and young people when developing core outcome sets and to adapt their methods so these are suitable for young participants. Future research is important to examine whether these adaptations are effective. ABSTRACT: Background Different research teams looking at treatments for the same condition often select and measure inconsistent treatment outcomes. This makes it difficult to synthesise the results of different studies, leads to selective outcome reporting and impairs the quality of evidence about treatments. 'Core outcome sets' (COS) can help to address these problems. A COS is an agreed, minimum list of outcomes that researchers are encouraged to consistently measure and report in their studies. Including children and young people (CYP) as participants in the development of COS for paediatric conditions ensures that clinically meaningful outcomes are measured and reported. However, few published COS have included CYP as participants. COS developers have described difficulties in recruiting and retaining CYP and there is a lack of guidance on optimising COS methods for them. We aimed to explore CYP's views on the methods used to develop COS and identify ways to optimise these methods.Main body This commentary summarises discussions during two workshops with approximately 70 CYP (aged 10-18 years old) at the International Children's Advisory Network Research and Advocacy Summit, 2018. Delegates described what might motivate them to participate in a COS study, including feeling valued, understanding the need for COS and the importance of input from CYP in their development, and financial and other incentives (e.g. certificates of participation). For Delphi surveys, delegates suggested that lists of outcomes should be as brief as possible, and that scoring and feedback methods should be simplified. For consensus meetings, delegates advised preparing CYP in advance, supporting them during meetings (e.g. via mentors) and favoured arrangements whereby CYP could meet separately from parents and other stakeholders. Overall, they wanted COS methods that were convenient, enjoyable and engaging.Conclusion This commentary points to the limitations of the methods currently used to develop COS with CYP. It also points to ways to motivate CYP to participate in COS studies and to enhancements of methods to make participation more engaging for CYP. Pending much needed research on COS methods for CYP, the perspectives offered in the workshops should help teams developing COS in paediatrics and child health.

Establishing an international awareness day for paediatric rheumatic diseases: reflections from the inaugural World Young Rheumatic Diseases (WORD) Day 2019.

There is a lack of awareness of paediatric rheumatic diseases (PRDs), among the public, and certain groups of healthcare professionals (HCPs), including general practitioners. To help improve international awareness and understanding of PRDs, World yOung Rheumatic Diseases (WORD) Day was established on 18 March 2019. Its aim was to raise awareness of PRDs and the importance of timely referral plus early diagnosis and access to appropriate treatment and support. A steering committee was established, and an external agency provided digital support. A social media campaign was launched in December 2018 to promote it, and analytics were used to measure its impact. Face-to-face and virtual events took place globally on or around WORD Day 2019, with 34 countries reporting events. Examples included lectures, social gatherings and media appearances. A total of 2585 and 660 individuals followed the official Facebook and Twitter accounts respectively, up until WORD Day. The official #WORDDay2019 hashtag was seen by 533,955 unique accounts on 18 March 2019 alone, with 3.3 million impressions. WORD Day 2019 was the first international campaign focused solely on PRDs. It demonstrated that despite awareness events being often resource-light, they can be implemented across a range of diverse settings. WORD Day has now become an annual global awareness event, facilitated by a growing network of patient, parent and professional community supporters.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.

Making research central to good paediatric practice.

There is evidence abroad of a cautious if not protective approach to research involving children and young people (CYP). We are sensitive to these views but believe they are based on a misconception that we must address together. In this introductory article we look at the complexities and risks of this research, how we must involving CYP and their families in the all aspects of research, how to seek valid consent and assent and how research findings should be reported. Considering how we should conduct this ongoing debate, we outline seven principles that we believe should underpin the necessary dialogue between all with legitimate interest. Our debate should be: (1) evidence informed: arguments should be supported by appropriate and reasonably accurate factual claims; (2) transparent about the grounds for decisions; (3) balanced: arguments should be met by contrary arguments; (4) conscientious: we must be willing to talk and listen, with civility and respect; (5) substantive: arguments should be considered sincerely on their merits, not on how they are made or by who is making them; (6) comprehensive: all points of view held by significant portions of the population should receive attention; and (7) with procedures for revising decisions in light of challenges, and it should be our responsibility to ensure we have met all of these.

Framework to help design and review research involving children.

This is the third of a series of four articles addressing ethical approaches and issues in undertaking clinical research with children and young people (CYP). This paper addresses the major ethical aspects of studies with CYP, where they vary from studies in adults.

How to involve children and young people in what is, after all, their research.

Third in a series of four articles addressing ethical approaches and issues in undertaking clinical research with children and young people.

User testing digital, multimedia information to inform children, adolescents and their parents about healthcare trials.

Digital, multimedia information resources (MMIs) containing text, video, animation and pictures are a promising alternative to written participant information materials designed to inform children, adolescents and parents about healthcare trials, but little research has tested whether they are fit for purpose. This study employed a consecutive groups design and user testing questionnaire to assess whether participants were able to find and understand key information in multimedia resources. Two rounds of testing were completed. In each round, seven children aged 7-11 tested the MMI with a parent; six adolescents aged 12-17 and seven parents tested the MMI independently. After round 1, the resources were revised based on participant scores, behaviour and feedback. Round 1 identified problems with 2/10 information items (length of trial and use of insulin pump); only 3/20 participants could locate all information items without difficulty. After revisions, 14/20 participants scored a clear round. Information comprehension was high: 96% understood in round 1 and 99% in round 2. Participant feedback on the multimedia resources was positive, although presentation preferences varied. User testing was employed successfully with children, adolescents and parents to identify issues with, and improve, multimedia resources developed to inform potential healthcare trial participants.

Young People's, Parents', and Professionals' Views on Required Components of Mobile Apps to Support Self-Management of Juvenile Arthritis: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence that supporting self-management of Juvenile Arthritis can benefit both patients and professionals. Young people with Juvenile Arthritis and their healthy peers increasingly use mobile technologies to access information and support in day-to-day life. Therefore, a user-led, rigorously developed and evaluated mobile app could be valuable for facilitating young people's self-management of Juvenile Arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to seek the views of young people with Juvenile Arthritis, their parents or carers, and health care professionals (HCPs) as to what should be included in a mobile app to facilitate young people's self-management of chronic Juvenile Arthritis. METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted with a purposeful sample of 9 young people aged 10-18 years with Juvenile Arthritis, 8 parents or carers, and 8 HCPs involved in their care. Data were gathered through semi-structured focus group and individual interviews with young people and their parents or carers and HCPs. Interview discussion was facilitated through demonstration of four existing health apps to explore participants' views on strengths and limitations of these, barriers and facilitators to mobile app use, preferred designs, functionality, levels of interaction, and data sharing arrangements. Data were analyzed using the framework approach. RESULTS: Analysis revealed three interlinked, overarching themes: (1) purpose, (2) components and content, and (3) social support. Despite some differences in emphasis on essential content, general agreement was found between young people with Juvenile Arthritis their parents or carers, and professionals that a mobile app to aid self-management would be useful. Underpinning the themes was a prerequisite that young people are enabled to feel a sense of ownership and control of the app, and that it be an interactive, engaging resource that offers developmentally appropriate information and reminders, as well as enabling them to monitor their symptoms and access social support. CONCLUSIONS: Findings justify and pave the way for a future feasibility study into the production and preliminary testing of such an app. This would consider issues such as compatibility with existing technologies, costs, age, and cross-gender appeal as well as resource implications.