Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: the patient version of the international recommendations.

To transcribe the treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations into a version that can be easily understood by patients. A core group of physicians and patients involved in the elaboration of the T2T recommendations produced a draft version of the T2T recommendations in lay language. This version was discussed, changed and reworded during a 1-day meeting with nine patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from nine different European countries. Finally, the level of agreement with the translation and with the content of the recommendations was assessed by the patient participants. The project resulted in a patient version of the T2T recommendations. The level of agreement with the translation and the content was high. The group discussion revealed a number of potential barriers for the implementation of the recommendations in clinical practice, such as inequalities in arthritis healthcare provision across Europe. An accurate version of the T2T recommendations that can be easily understood by patients is available and can improve the shared decision process in the management of RA.

European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations to enable successful inclusion of the patient perspective in European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)-funded scientific research projects. METHODS: The EULAR standardised operational procedures for guideline development were followed. A systematic literature review was presented during a first task force meeting, including 3 rheumatologists, 1 rheumatologist/epidemiologist, 2 allied health professionals, 2 representatives of arthritis research organisations and 7 patient representatives, resulting in 38 statements. A Delphi method was carried out to reduce and refine the statements and agree on a set of eight. Next, a survey among a wider group of experts, professionals and patient representatives (n=42), was completed. Feedback from this wider group was discussed at the second meeting and integrated in the final wording of the recommendations. Subsequently, the level of agreement of the group of experts (n=81) was re-evaluated. RESULTS: The project resulted in a definition of patient research partner and agreement on a set of eight recommendations for their involvement in research projects. These recommendations provide practical guidance for organising patient participation, capturing (1) the role of patient research partners, (2) phase of involvement, (3) the recommended number, (4) recruitment, (5) selection, (6) support, (7) training and (8) acknowledgement. CONCLUSION: Collaboration between patients and professionals in research is relatively new. Trials or effectiveness studies are not yet available. Nevertheless, it is possible to define recommendations for the inclusion of patients in research following a solid expert opinion based consensus process.

Patient participation as an integral part of patient-reported outcomes development ensures the representation of the patient voice: a case study from the field of rheumatology.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important instruments to evaluate healthcare interventions, both in clinical practice and clinical research. OBJECTIVE: To describe how representation of the perspective of people with psoriatic arthritis was obtained through active participation on different levels in the development of PROs. METHODS: This case study focuses on the methods of involving patients in the elaboration and validation of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) score. We used the concept of the participation ladder and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the involvement of patient representatives in scientific projects to analyse the variety of ways patients participated in this process. RESULTS: Two patient experts were part of the steering group. 12 patient research partners, coming from 12 different European countries, participated in identifying domains, formulating items for the questionnaire and determining the number of items, the recall period and the questionnaire format. They also helped with the translation of the items into different European languages. Then, 139 patients took part in ranking and prioritising the domains for importance; 65 patients were involved in cognitive debriefing interviews; 499 new patients were recruited for the validation study. Challenges of patient participation in PRO development, such as the representation of patients, are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Making patient participation an integral part of the PRO development and validation process is an important requisite for outcome research. The variety of patient contributions at different phases in this case study resulted in an instrument with high face validity.

Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare.

Although many clinicians feel they already use shared decision making, research shows a perception-reality gap. A M Stiggelbout and colleagues discuss why it is important and highlight some best practices.