Assessing acceptability and identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with rheumatology professionals in 23 European and Asian countries.

OBJECTIVES: To disseminate and assess the level of acceptability and applicability of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) recommendations for patient education among professionals in rheumatology across Europe and three Asian countries and identify potential barriers and facilitators to their application. METHODS: A parallel convergent mixed-methods design with an inductive approach was used. A web-based survey, available in 20 different languages, was distributed to health professionals by non-probability sampling. The level of agreement and applicability of each recommendation was assessed by (0-10) rating scales. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were assessed using free-text responses. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data by content analysis and presented in 16 categories supported by quotes. RESULTS: A total of 1159 completed the survey; 852 (73.5%) were women. Most of the professionals were nurses (n=487), rheumatologists (n=320), physiotherapists (n=158). For all recommendations, the level of agreement was high but applicability was lower. The four most common barriers to application were lack of time, lack of training in how to provide patient education, not having enough staff to perform this task and lack of evaluation tools. The most common facilitators were tailoring patient education to individual patients, using group education, linking patient education with diagnosis and treatment and inviting patients to provide feedback on patient education delivery. CONCLUSIONS: This project has disseminated the EULAR recommendations for patient education to health professionals across 23 countries. Potential barriers to their application were identified and some are amenable to change, namely training patient education providers and developing evaluation tools.

Comparing diffusion weighted imaging with clinical and blood parameters, and with short tau inversion recovery sequence in detecting spinal and sacroiliac joint inflammation in axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the usefulness of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) by comparing with clinical features, blood parameters and traditional short tau inversion recovery (STIR) sequence in detecting spinal and sacroiliac (SI) joint inflammation in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients. METHODS: One hundred and ten axSpA patients were recruited. Clinical, radiological and blood parameters were recorded. DWI and STIR MRI were performed simultaneously and results were scored according to the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) for comparison. Apparent diffusion coef cient (ADC) values were also calculated. RESULTS: DWI did not correlate with clinical parameters or blood parameters. It also had lowered sensitivity. When compared with STIR sequence, it correlated well with STIR sequence at the SI joint level (CC 0.76, p<0.001), but weakly at the spinal level (CC 0.23, p=0.02). At the SI joint level, the presence of inflammation on both STIR sequence and DWI was associated with an increase in maximum (B=0.24, p=0.02 in STIR; B=0.37, p<0.001 in DWI) and mean ADC values (B=0.17, p=0.003 in STIR; B=0.15, p=0.01 in DWI). Maximum (B=0.19, p=0.04) and mean spinal ADC values (B=0.18, p=0.01) were also positively associated with DWI detected spinal inflammation. Presence of Modic lesions showed positive correlation with STIR sequence (B=7.12, p=0.01) but not spinal ADC values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite DWI correlates with STIR sequence, it has lower sensitivity. However, ADC values appear to be independent of Modic lesions and may supplement STIR sequence to differentiate degeneration.

Nurse-Led Consultation for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis at Low Disease Activity: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of nurse-led consultations in patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Hong Kong. METHODS: The present work was a single-center, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial. Patients who had rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with low disease activity (LDA) were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to attend a nurse-led consultation or rheumatologist follow-up visit for 2 years. The primary end point was the proportion of patients whose RA remained at LDA. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with RA in disease remission and the scores recorded on the Leeds Satisfaction Questionnaire at 2 years, changes from baseline on the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS), Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical component score, and 19-item Compliance Questionnaire for Rheumatology (CQR-19) score. RESULTS: Among 280 patients who were randomized equally to either attend nurse-led consultations or rheumatologist follow-up visits, 267 patients completed the study. In the nurse-led consultation and rheumatologist follow-up groups, 92.1% and 91.4% patients, respectively, remained at LDA at 2 years. The 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of the adjusted treatment difference were within the predefined noninferiority margin in both the intention-to-treat analysis (95% CI 5.75, 7.15) and the per-protocol analysis (95% CI 1.67, 7.47). Although the changes in DAS28-CRP score over 2 years were significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.001), there were no significant changes from baseline in SHS, HAQ DI, SF-36 physical component scores, and CQR-19 scores. At the end of the study, more patients expressed satisfaction with nurse-led consultations. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led consultations were not inferior to rheumatologist follow-up visits in patients with stable RA.

Disseminating and assessing implementation of the EULAR recommendations for patient education in inflammatory arthritis: a mixed-methods study with patients' perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' agreement and reasons for agreement or disagreement with the EULAR recommendations for patient education (PE) for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: This mixed-method survey collected data using snowball sampling. The survey had been translated into 20 languages by local healthcare professionals, researchers and patient research partners. It explored the degree to which patients with IA agreed with each recommendation for PE (0=do not agree at all and 10=agree completely) and their rationale for their agreement level in free text questions. Descriptive statistics summarised participants' demographics and agreement levels. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the free text data. Sixteen subcategories were developed, describing the reasons for agreement or disagreement with the recommendations, which constituted the categories. RESULTS: The sample comprised 2779 participants (79% female), with a mean (SD) age 55.1 (13.1) years and disease duration 17.1 (13.3) years. Participants strongly agreed with most recommendations (median 10 (IQR: 9-10) for most recommendations). Reasons for agreement with the recommendations included the benefit of using PE to facilitate collaborative care and shared decision making, the value of flexible and tailored PE, and the value of gaining support from other patients. Reasons for disagreement included lack of resources for PE, not wanting information to be tailored by healthcare professionals and a reluctance to use telephone-based PE. CONCLUSION: The EULAR recommendations for PE have been disseminated among patients with IA. Overall, agreement levels were very high, suggesting that they reflect patients' preferences for engaging in collaborative clinical care and using PE to facilitate and supplement their own understanding of IA. Reasons for not completely agreeing with the recommendations can inform implementation strategies and education of healthcare professionals.