The patient perspective on biologic DMARD dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the factors that play a role for patients with RA when considering dose reduction (i.e. gradual tapering until discontinuation) of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and to determine their relative importance. Methods: A mixed methods design was used in which we identified influencing factors by performing semi-structured interviews and ranked these factors using a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Also, we looked at the influence of several patient characteristics on this ranking. Results: For sub study 1 and 2, 22 and 192 patients with RA were included, respectively, in the analyses. Thirty factors were identified from the interviews-characterized into nine themes-and appraised in the questionnaire. Most respondents had a positive attitude towards bDMARD dose reduction. The study showed that patients are concerned that dose reduction will lead to a disease flare that affects their daily life (pain, function). It is important for them to know that it is possible to increase the dose if (further) reduction fails and that the bDMARD will be effective again. Patients value the opinion of their rheumatologist, and being involved in the decision to start tapering is highly ranked as well. The most important factors were consistent between different groups of patients. Conclusion: The results from this study facilitate implementation of bDMARD dose reduction; they inform care providers on what is important for patients and provide a basis for shared decision making.

Treatment Beliefs Underlying Intended Treatment Choices in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: Patients' beliefs about treatment modalities for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) will underlie their treatment choices. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, it is hypothesized that patients' beliefs, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control guide their treatment choices. Also, symptom severity and one's inherent tendency to approach or avoid situations are assumed to play a role. The objective of this study was to test whether these variables were associated with intended treatment choices in knee and hip OA. METHODS: Patients with knee and hip OA were randomly selected from hospital patient records. They completed the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire to assess positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activities, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections, and arthroplasty. Other measures were intention, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control (ASES), symptom severity (WOMAC), and the person's general tendency to approach or avoid situations (RR/BIS scales). Three models were tested using path analyses to examine the hypothesized associations. RESULTS: Participants were 289 patients. Positive treatment beliefs and subjective norm were consistently associated with intended treatment choice across all treatment modalities. Negative treatment beliefs were associated with intended treatment choices for pain medication and arthroplasty. Other associations were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study testing the Theory of Planned Behavior in the context of treatment choices in OA. Findings suggest that foremost positive beliefs about treatment modalities and the norms of one's social environment guide a specific treatment choice. Unexpectedly, symptom severity was not related to intended treatment choices.

Hierarchical structure and importance of patients' reasons for treatment choices in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a concept mapping study.

OBJECTIVES: To improve patients' use of conservative treatment options of hip and knee OA, in-depth understanding of reasons underlying patients' treatment choices is required. The current study adopted a concept mapping method to thematically structure and prioritize reasons for treatment choice in knee and hip OA from a patients' perspective. METHODS: Multiple reasons for treatment choices were previously identified using in-depth interviews. In consensus meetings, experts derived 51 representative reasons from the interviews. Thirty-six patients individually sorted the 51 reasons in two card-sorting tasks: one based on content similarity, and one based on importance of reasons. The individual sortings of the first card-sorting task provided input for a hierarchical cluster analysis (squared Euclidian distances, Ward's method). The importance of the reasons and clusters were examined using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The hierarchical structure of reasons for treatment choices showed a core distinction between two categories of clusters: barriers [subdivided into context (e.g. the healthcare system) and disadvantages] and outcome (subdivided into treatment and personal life). At the lowest level, 15 clusters were identified of which the clusters Physical functioning, Risks and Prosthesis were considered most important when making a treatment decision for hip or knee OA. CONCLUSION: Patients' treatment choices in knee and hip OA are guided by contextual barriers, disadvantages of the treatment, outcomes of the treatment and consequences for personal life. The structured overview of reasons can be used to support shared decision-making.

Development of the "Treatment beliefs in knee and hip OsteoArthritis (TOA)" questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Use of conservative treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA) is suboptimal, which appears to be partly due to patients' beliefs about treatments. The aim of this study was to develop a research instrument assessing patients' beliefs about various treatment modalities of hip and knee OA: the 'Treatment beliefs in OA (TOA) questionnaire'. METHODS: The item pool that was retrieved from interviews with patients and healthcare providers comprised beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activity, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections and arthroplasty. After an extensive selection procedure, a draft questionnaire with 200 items was constructed. Descriptive analyses and exploratory factor analyses with oblique rotation were conducted for each treatment modality separately to decide upon the final questionnaire. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were determined. RESULTS: The final questionnaire comprised 60 items. It was completed by 351 patients with knee or hip OA. Each of the five treatment modalities yielded a two factor solution with 37% to 51% explained variance and high face validity. Factor I included 'positive treatment beliefs' and factor II 'negative treatment beliefs'. Internal consistency (Cronbach α's from 0.72 to 0.87) and test-retest reliability (i.e. intraclass correlation coefficient from 0.66-0.88; standard error of measurement from 0.06-0.11) were satisfactory to good. CONCLUSIONS: The TOA questionnaire is the first questionnaire assessing positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities for knee and hip OA. The instrument will help to understand whether and to what extent treatment beliefs influence treatment choices.

Barriers Impeding the Use of Non-pharmacological, Non-surgical Care in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: The Views of General Practitioners, Physical Therapists, and Medical Specialists.

BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological, non-surgical treatment modalities are underused in the management of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). One possible explanation for this could be healthcare providers' opinions about these treatment modalities. The objective of this qualitative study was to identify healthcare providers' views on non-pharmacological, non-surgical care for OA. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 healthcare providers (rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists and general practitioners) were held. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a three-step thematic approach. Two independent researchers continuously reflected upon, compared, discussed, and adjusted the codings. RESULTS: Eight themes were identified reflecting three main barriers to the provision of non-pharmacological, non-surgical care: perceived lack of expertise of the healthcare provider (including a lack of knowledge and skills that are required to support patients), perceived lack of evidence-based treatment (regarding weight management, and the intensity and dosage of physical exercise), and suboptimal organization of care (including hampered dialogue between disciplines and lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of disciplines). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers report multiple barriers impeding non-pharmacological, non-surgical care for patients with knee and hip OA. To overcome these barriers, education focused on initiating and supporting lifestyle changes, promotion of interventions according to evidence-based recommendations, and improved organization of care are proposed.