Policies in Canada fail to address disparities in access to person-centred osteoarthritis care: a content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access OA care, particularly racialized women. One way to reduce inequities is through policies that can influence healthcare services. We examined how OA-relevant policies in Canada address equitable, person-centred OA care for women. METHODS: We used content analysis to extract data from English-language OA-relevant documents referred to as policies or other synonymous terms published in 2000 or later identified by searching governmental and other web sites. We used summary statistics to describe policy characteristics, person-centred care using McCormack's six-domain framework, and mention of OA prevalence, barriers and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care among women. RESULTS: We included 14 policies developed from 2004 to 2021. None comprehensively addressed all person-centred care domains, and few addressed individual domains: enable self-management (50%), share decisions (43%), exchange information (29%), respond to emotions (14%), foster a healing relationship (0%) and manage uncertainty (0%). Even when mentioned, content offered little guidance for how to achieve person-centred OA care. Few policies acknowledged greater prevalence of OA among women (36%), older (29%) or Indigenous persons (29%) and those of lower socioeconomic status (14%); or barriers to OA care among those of lower socioeconomic status (50%), in rural areas (43%), of older age (37%) or ethno-cultural groups (21%), or women (21%). Four (29%) policies recommended strategies for improving access to OA care at the patient (self-management education material in different languages and tailored to cultural norms), clinician (healthcare professional education) and system level (evaluate OA service equity, engage lay health leaders in delivering self-management programs, and offer self-management programs in a variety of formats). Five (36%) policies recommended research on how to improve OA care for equity-seeking groups. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian OA-relevant policies lack guidance to overcome disparities in access to person-centred OA care for equity-seeking groups including women. This study identified several ways to strengthen policies. Ongoing research must identify the needs and preferences of equity-seeking persons with OA, and evaluate the impact of various models of service delivery, knowledge needed to influence OA-relevant policy.

Content validity testing of the INTERMED Self-Assessment in a sample of adults with rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatology healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: Care complexity can occur when patients experience health challenges simultaneously with social barriers including food and/or housing insecurity, lack of transportation or other factors that impact care and patient outcomes. People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may experience care complexity due to the chronicity of their condition and other biopsychosocial factors. There are few standardised instruments that measure care complexity and none that measure care complexity specifically in people with RA. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the content validity of the INTERMEDS Self-Assessment (IMSA) instrument that measures care complexity with a sample of adults with RA and rheumatology healthcare providers (HCPs). Cognitive debriefing interviews utilising a reparative framework were conducted. METHODS: Patient participants were recruited through two existing studies where participants agreed to be contacted about future studies. Study information was also shared through email blasts, posters and brochures at rheumatology clinic sites and trusted arthritis websites. Various rheumatology HCPs were recruited through email blasts, and divisional emails and announcements. Interviews were conducted with nine patients living with RA and five rheumatology HCPs. RESULTS: Three main reparative themes were identified: (1) Lack of item clarity and standardisation including problems with item phrasing, inconsistency of the items and/or answer sets and noninclusive language; (2) item barrelling, where items asked about more than one issue, but only allowed a single answer choice; and (3) timeframes presented in the item or answer choices were either too long or too short, and did not fit the lived experiences of patients. Items predicting future healthcare needs were difficult to answer due to the episodic and fluctuating nature of RA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite international use of the IMSA to measure care complexity, patients with RA and rheumatology HCPs in our setting perceived that it did not have content validity for use in RA and that revision for use in this population under a reparative framework was unfeasible. Future instrument development requires an iterative cognitive debriefing and repair process with the population of interest in the early stages to ensure content validity and comprehension. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contributions included both patient partners on the study team and people with RA who participated in the study. Patient partners were involved in study design, analysis and interpretation of the findings and manuscript preparation. Data analysis was structured according to emergent themes of the data that were grounded in patient perspectives and experiences.

"How are you?" Perspectives From Patients and Health Care Providers of Text Messaging to Support Rheumatoid Arthritis Care: A Thematic Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may need to access rheumatology care between scheduled visits. WelTel is a virtual care platform that supports secure two-way text-messaging between patients and their health care team. The objective of the present study was to explore perspectives and experiences of health care providers (HCPs) and patients related to the use of WelTel as an adjunct to routine care. METHODS: Seventy patients with RA were enrolled in a six-month WelTel pilot project launched in September 2021. Patients received monthly "How are you?" text message check-ins and could message their health care team during clinic hours to request health advice. The current project is a qualitative study of the WelTel pilot. A subgroup of pilot participants was purposively sampled and invited to participate in interviews. A thematic analysis of transcripts was conducted using a deductive approach leveraging quality of care domains. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (62% female, mean age 62 years, 10 White) completed interviews. Patients' views suggested that text messaging with the rheumatology team supported high-quality care across multiple quality domains including patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, safety, effectiveness, equity, and appropriateness. Seven HCPs (57.1% female, one pharmacist and six rheumatologists) completed interviews. HCPs' perspectives varied based on their experience with the WelTel platform. Additional themes reported by HCPs included perceived increased workload and burnout. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA perceived text-based messaging as supporting high-quality care. The impact of increased communications on HCP burnout and workload requires consideration, and future studies should evaluate the effect of texting on patient outcomes.

Rheumatoid Arthritis Care Experiences of Black People Living in Canada: A Qualitative Study to Inform Health Service Improvements.

OBJECTIVE: To understand experiences related to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care and propose service-level strategies to reduce and mitigate inequities for Black people living in Canada. METHODS: Purposive and respondent driven sampling was used to recruit participants for qualitative interviews to explore population factors relevant to RA care and challenges and facilitators for access to health care services, medications, and enacting preferred treatment plans. Thematic analysis was conducted using the Braun and Clarke method with inductive and deductive coding and critical race theory guiding analysis. RESULTS: Six women and two men with RA, and two women health care professionals, expressed how their racial identity contributed to their understanding of RA, preferences for treatment, and outcome goals. Health care access was influenced by financial limitations and racism, by exclusion, and discrimination, and also by cultural norms in seeking health care and awareness about RA within the Black community. Participants experienced health system fragmentation and were not connected to ancillary supports. Treatment decision-making was influenced by the legacy of oppression and medical experimentation on Black people and the predominance of biomedical approaches emphasized by health care providers. Holistic and cultural approaches, provided in safe, trauma-informed care environments, with flexibility in service models, are desired. Partnerships between arthritis care services and Black community organizations are proposed to promote community awareness and knowledge about arthritis and provide support mechanisms for patients within their community. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights unique considerations based on race and ethnicity and provides suggestions for arthritis care to mitigate inequities for Black people living with arthritis.

Operationalizing the GRADE-equity criterion to inform guideline recommendations: application to a medical cannabis guideline.

OBJECTIVES: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline. RESULTS: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions. CONCLUSION: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments.

Multi-level strategies to improve equitable timely person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: qualitative interviews with women and healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Women are more likely to develop osteoarthritis (OA), and have greater OA pain and disability compared with men, but are less likely to receive guideline-recommended management, particularly racialized women. OA care of diverse women, and strategies to improve the quality of their OA care is understudied. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies to overcome barriers of access to OA care for diverse women. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with key informants and used content analysis to identify themes regarding what constitutes person-centred OA care, barriers of OA care, and strategies to support equitable timely access to person-centred OA care. RESULTS: We interviewed 27 women who varied by ethno-cultural group (e.g. African or Caribbean Black, Chinese, Filipino, Indian, Pakistani, Caucasian), age, region of Canada, level of education, location of OA and years with OA; and 31 healthcare professionals who varied by profession (e.g. family physician, nurse practitioner, community pharmacist, physio- and occupational therapists, chiropractors, healthcare executives, policy-makers), career stage, region of Canada and type of organization. Participants within and across groups largely agreed on approaches for person-centred OA care across six domains: foster a healing relationship, exchange information, address emotions, manage uncertainty, share decisions and enable self-management. Participants identified 22 barriers of access and 18 strategies to overcome barriers at the patient- (e.g. educational sessions and materials that accommodate cultural norms offered in different languages and formats for persons affected by OA), healthcare professional- (e.g. medical and continuing education on OA and on providing OA care tailored to intersectional factors) and system- (e.g. public health campaigns to raise awareness of OA, and how to prevent and manage it; self-referral to and public funding for therapy, greater number and ethno-cultural diversity of healthcare professionals, healthcare policies that address the needs of diverse women, dedicated inter-professional OA clinics, and a national strategy to coordinate OA care) levels. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to a gap in knowledge of how to optimize OA care for disadvantaged groups including diverse women. Ongoing efforts are needed to examine how best to implement these strategies, which will require multi-sector collaboration and must engage diverse women.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Investigating Associations Between Access to Rheumatology Care, Treatment, Continuous Care, and Healthcare Utilization and Costs Among Older Individuals With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between rheumatologist access, early treatment, and ongoing care of older-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and healthcare utilization and costs following diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed data from a population-based inception cohort of individuals aged > 65 years with RA in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed between 2002 and 2014 with follow-up to 2019. We assessed 4 performance measures in the first 4 years following diagnosis, including access to rheumatology care, yearly follow-up, timely treatment, and ongoing treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. We examined annual healthcare utilization, mean direct healthcare costs, and whether the performance measures were associated with costs in year 5. RESULTS: A total of 13,293 individuals met inclusion criteria. The mean age was 73.7 (SD 5.7) years and 68% were female. Total mean direct healthcare cost per individual increased annually and was CAD $13,929 in year 5. All 4 performance measures were met for 35% of individuals. In multivariable analyses, costs for not meeting access to rheumatology care and timely treatment performance measures were 20% (95% CI 8-32) and 6% (95% CI 1-12) higher, respectively, than where those measures were met. The main driver of cost savings among individuals meeting all 4 performance measures were from lower complex continuing care, home care, and long-term care costs, as well as fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits. CONCLUSION: Access to rheumatologists for RA diagnosis, timely treatment, and ongoing care are associated with lower total healthcare costs at 5 years. Investments in improving access to care may be associated with long-term health system savings.

Equity Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccination Studies of Individuals With Autoimmune Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the extent to which populations experiencing inequities were considered in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: We included all studies (n = 19) from an ongoing Cochrane living systematic review on COVID-19 vaccination in patients with AIRDs. We used the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, and social capital, plus: age, multimorbidity, and health literacy) to identify factors that stratify health outcomes. We assessed equity considerations in relation to differences in COVID-19 baseline risk, eligibility criteria, and description of participant characteristics and attrition, controlling for confounding factors, subgroup analyses, and applicability of findings. RESULTS: All 19 studies were cohort studies that followed individuals with AIRDs after vaccination. Three studies (16%) described differences in baseline risk for COVID-19 across age. Two studies (11%) defined eligibility criteria based on occupation and age. All 19 studies described participant age and sex. Twelve studies (67%) controlled for age and/or sex as confounders. Eight studies (47%) conducted subgroup analyses across at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age. Ten studies (53%) interpreted applicability in relation to at least 1 PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly age (47%), then ethnicity (16%), sex (16%), and multimorbidity (11%). CONCLUSION: Sex and age were the most frequently considered PROGRESS-Plus factors in studies of COVID-19 vaccination in individuals with AIRDs. The generalizability of evidence to populations experiencing inequities is uncertain. Future COVID-19 vaccine studies should report participant characteristics in more detail to inform guideline recommendations.

Effect of Training on Patient Self-Assessment of Joint Counts in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Patient self-assessed joint counts, if accurate and reliable, could potentially serve as a useful clinical assessment tool in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This systematic review examines the effect of patient training on the inter-rater reliability of joint counts between patients and clinicians. METHODS: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for articles that incorporated patient training and measured the reliability of patient self-assessed joint counts in RA. Articles were included if they reported on the inter-rater reliability between patient and clinician joint counts in both trained and untrained patients with RA. Data were extracted on characteristics of patients, structure and components of the training interventions, joint count reliability of patients with and without training, and patient feedback on training interventions. The relevant data were summarized and described. RESULTS: Multiple training methods have been studied (n = 5), including in-person sessions run by rheumatologists and instructional videos on the joint examination. Overall, training improved the reliability of patient self-joint counts, with more marked improvement in reliability of swollen joint counts than tender joint counts. Patients had positive feedback when surveyed on their experiences with training. CONCLUSION: Various training modalities (in-person and video-based) may be effective at improving reliability of patient self-joint counts. More research is needed on this topic, with potential areas for future research including 1) comparison between the efficacy of different modalities of training, and 2) impact of patient factors (education level and disease severity) on the efficacy of training.

Patient preferences to value health outcomes in rheumatology clinical trials: Report from the OMERACT special interest group✰.

OBJECTIVE: To inform a research plan for future studies by obtaining stakeholder input on the application of preference-based methods to clinical trial design. METHODS: We conducted a virtual OMERACT session to encourage stakeholder engagement. We developed materials for the session to facilitate discussion based on identified case examples and feedback sessions. RESULTS: Participants prioritized incorporating patient preferences in all aspects of trial design with an emphasis on outcome selection. Participants highlighted the need for careful consideration around preference heterogeneity and equity factors. CONCLUSION: Including patient preferences in trial design was considered a priority requiring further exploration to develop comprehensive guidance.

Informing the GRADE evidence to decision process with health equity considerations: demonstration from the Canadian rheumatoid arthritis care context.

OBJECTIVES: Health equity is a priority for clinical and public health practice and promoted in GRADE's Evidence to Decision (EtD) Framework, yet there is still limited integration of specific equity considerations in chronic disease guideline development and implementation. Our objective was to embed equity considerations for upcoming Canadian Rheumatoid Arthritis treatment guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In parallel with the Guidelines Committee process, considerations for six population groups (rural and remote residents, Indigenous Peoples, elderly persons with frailty, minority populations of first-generation immigrants and refugees, persons with low socioeconomic status or who are vulnerably housed, and sex and gender populations) based on literature reviews and key informant interviews were identified and contextualized to each step in the GRADE EtD framework. RESULTS: The EtD Framework domains relevant to rheumatoid arthritis treatment and management were analyzed through patient-centric, social determinant and economic lenses, while considering implementation feasibility. This determined tailored considerations relevant to recommendations for the priority populations to mitigate potential intervention-generated inequities. CONCLUSION: This approach provides a demonstration of the process of incorporating equity in the evidence to decision process and can be applied in future rheumatic disease guidelines while also informing a research agenda for equity in rheumatology outcomes.

Supporting Equity in Rheumatoid Arthritis Outcomes in Canada: Population-specific Factors in Patient-centered Care.

OBJECTIVE: Health equity considerations have not been incorporated into prior Canadian Rheumatology Association guidelines. Our objective was to identify the challenges and possible solutions to mitigate threats to health equity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care in Canada. METHODS: A consultation process informed selection of priority populations, determined to be rural and remote, Indigenous, elderly with frailty, first-generation immigrant and refugee, low income and vulnerably housed, and diverse gender and sex populations. Semistructured interviews were completed with patients with lived experience, healthcare providers, and equity-oriented researchers. These interviews probed on population factors, initial and ongoing healthcare access issues, and therapeutic considerations influencing RA care. Known or proposed solutions to mitigate inequities during implementation of service models for the population group were requested. The research team used a phenomenological thematic analysis model and mapped the data into a logic model. Solutions applicable to several population groups were proposed. RESULTS: Thirty-five interviews were completed to identify realities for each population in accessing RA care. Five themes emerged as primary solutions to population-based inequities, including actively improving the patient-practitioner relationship, increasing accessibility and coordination of care through alternative models of care, upholding autonomy in treatment selection while actively addressing logistical barriers and individualized therapy needs, collaborating with health supports valued by the patient, and being advocates for policy change and health system restructuring to ensure appropriate resource redistribution. CONCLUSION: The challenges for populations facing inequities in rheumatology care and promising solutions should inform guideline development and implementation, policy change, and health system restructuring.

Model to Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Psoriasis Patients for Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Screening psoriasis patients for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is intended to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of screening for PsA in patients with psoriasis in Canada. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in psoriasis patients. The screening tools included the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation, and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (EARP) questionnaires. States of health were defined by disability levels as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. State transitions were modeled based on annual disease progression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty and to test model assumptions. RESULTS: Screening was cost-effective compared to no screening. The EARP tool had the lowest total cost ($2,000 per patient per year saved compared to no screening) and the highest total QALYs (additional 0.18 per patient compared to no screening). The results were most sensitive to test accuracy and the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). No screening was cost-effective (at $50,000 per QALY) relative to screening when DMARDs failed to slow disease progression. CONCLUSION: If early therapy with DMARDs delays biologic treatment, implementing screening in patients with psoriasis in Canada is expected to represent a cost savings of $220 million per year and improve the quality of life.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize patients' preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients' preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies. RESULTS: From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Psoriatic arthritis screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy and characteristics of different questionnaire-based PsA screening tools. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medical Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the accuracy of self-administered PsA screening tools for patients with psoriasis. A bivariate meta-analysis was used to pool screening tool-specific accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity). Heterogeneity of the diagnostic odds ratio was evaluated through meta-regression. All full-text records were assessed for risk of bias with the QUADAS 2 tool. RESULTS: A total of 2280 references were identified and 130 records were assessed for full-text review, of which 42 were included for synthesis. Of these, 27 were included in quantitative syntheses. Of the records, 37% had an overall low risk of bias. Fourteen different screening tools and 104 separate accuracy estimates were identified. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated for the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (cut-off = 44), Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (47), Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (8), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (3) and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (3). The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire reported the highest sensitivity and specificity (0.85 each). The I2 for the diagnostic odds ratios varied between 76 and 90.1%. Meta-regressions were conducted, in which the age, risk of bias for patient selection and the screening tool accounted for some of the observed heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Questionnaire-based tools have moderate accuracy to identify PsA among psoriasis patients. The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire appears to have slightly better accuracy compared with the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool and Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation. An economic evaluation could model the uncertainty and estimate the cost-effectiveness of PsA screening programs that use different tools.

Improving Appropriate Access to Care With Central Referral and Triage in Rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term and long-term impact of a centralized system for the intake and triage of rheumatology referrals on access to care and referral quality. METHODS: An innovative central referral process, the Central Referral and Triage in Rheumatology (CReATe Rheum) program, was implemented in 2006, serving a referral base of 2 million people. Referrals are received in a central office, triaged by trained nurses, and assigned to the next available appointment on a prioritized basis. To evaluate the short-term impact, we compared wait times, duplicate referrals, and no-shows from a pre-implementation practice audit to a 2-year post-implementation evaluation (January 2007 to December 2008). Rheumatologists also assessed the quality and completeness of the referral information and accuracy of the urgency category assigned during triage. We evaluated the long-term impact by tracking referral volume, wait times, and rheumatologist manpower each year until December, 2013. RESULTS: During the first 2 years, wait-time variability between rheumatologists decreased, and wait times were reduced for moderate and urgent referrals. CReATe Rheum improved the quality of referral information and eliminated duplicate referrals. The urgency of the referral was assigned correctly in 90% of referrals. Over the long term, CReATe Rheum maintained short wait times for more urgent patients despite a growing number of referrals and a stable number of rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: A centralized system for the intake and triage of rheumatology referrals improved referral quality, reduced system inefficiencies, and effectively managed wait times on a prioritized basis for a large referral population.

Choosing wisely: the Canadian Rheumatology Association's list of 5 items physicians and patients should question.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a list of 5 tests or treatments used in rheumatology that have evidence indicating that they may be unnecessary and thus should be reevaluated by rheumatology healthcare providers and patients. METHODS: Using the Delphi method, a committee of 16 rheumatologists from across Canada and an allied health professional generated a list of tests, procedures, or treatments in rheumatology that may be unnecessary, nonspecific, or insensitive. Items with high content agreement and perceived relevance advanced to a survey of Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) members. CRA members ranked these top items based on content agreement, effect, and item ranking. A methodology subcommittee discussed the items in light of their relevance to rheumatology, potential effect on patients, and the member survey results. Five candidate items selected were then subjected to a literature review. A group of patient collaborators with rheumatic diseases also reviewed these items. RESULTS: Sixty-four unique items were proposed and after 3 Delphi rounds, this list was narrowed down to 13 items. In the member-wide survey, 172 rheumatologists responded (36% of those contacted). The respondent characteristics were similar to the membership at large in terms of sex and geographical distribution. Five topics (antinuclear antibodies testing, HLA-B27 testing, bone density testing, bone scans, and bisphosphonate use) with high ratings on agreement and effect were chosen for literature review. CONCLUSION: The list of 5 items has identified starting points to promote discussion about practices that should be questioned to assist rheumatology healthcare providers in delivering high-quality care.