Development and Validation of a Treatment Algorithm for Osteoarthritis Pain Management in Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis.

Background: Although osteoarthritis is common in the hemodialysis population and leads to poor health outcomes, pain management is challenged by the absence of clinical guidance. A treatment algorithm was developed and validated to aid hemodialysis clinicians in managing osteoarthritis pain. Objective: The objective was to develop and validate a treatment algorithm for managing osteoarthritis pain in patients undergoing hemodialysis. Design: A validation study was conducted based on Lynn's method for content validation. Setting: To develop and validate a treatment algorithm, interviews were conducted virtually by the primary researcher with clinicians from various institutions across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in Ontario. Patients: The treatment algorithm was developed and validated for the management of osteoarthritis pain in patients on hemodialysis. Patients were not involved in the development or validation of the tool. Measurements: The algorithm was measured for content and face validity. Content validity was measured by calculating the content validity index of each component (I-CVI) of the algorithm and the overall scale validity index (S-CVI). Face validity was assessed by calculating the percentage of positive responses to the face validity statements. Methods: A draft algorithm was developed based on literature searches and expert opinion and validated by interviewing nephrology and pain management clinicians. Through consecutive rounds of 1:1 interviews, content and face validity were assessed by asking participants to rate the relevance of each component of the algorithm and indicate their level of agreeability with a series of statements. Following each round, the I-CVI of the algorithm as well as the S-CVI was calculated and the percentage of positive responses to the statements was determined. The research team revised the algorithm in response to the findings. The final algorithm provides a stepwise approach to the non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic management of pain, including topical, oral, and opioid use. Results: A total of 18 clinicians from 7 institutions across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area were interviewed (10 pharmacists, 5 nurse practitioners, and 3 physicians). The average S-CVI of the algorithm across all 3 rounds was 0.93. At least 78% of participants provided positive responses to the face validity statements. Limitations: An algorithm was developed based on input from clinicians working in the province of Ontario, limiting the generalizability of the algorithm across provinces. In addition, the algorithm did not include the perspectives of primary care providers or patients/caregivers. Conclusions: An algorithm for the management of osteoarthritis pain in the hemodialysis population was developed and validated through expert review to standardize practices and encourage clinicians to use evidence-based treatments and address the psychosocial symptoms of pain. As the algorithm possesses a high degree of content and face validity, it may improve osteoarthritis pain management among patients undergoing hemodialysis. Future research will assess the implementation of the algorithm across hemodialysis settings.

Contexte: Bien que l'arthrose soit fréquente et qu'elle entraîne de mauvais résultats de santé chez les patients en hémodialyse, la gestion de la douleur liée à l'arthrose est limitée par l'absence de directives cliniques. Un algorithme de traitement a été développé et validé afin d'aider les cliniciens en hémodialyse à gérer la douleur liée à l'arthrose chez leurs patients. Objectifs: Développer et valider un algorithme de traitement pour la prise en charge de la douleur liée à l'arthrose chez les patients en hémodialyse. Conception: Étude de validation menée en utilisant la méthode de Lynn pour la validation du contenu. Cadre: Pour élaborer et valider l'algorithme, le chercheur principal a mené des entrevues en mode virtuel avec des cliniciens de divers établissements de Hamilton et de la région du Grand Toronto (Ontario). Sujets: L'algorithme de traitement a été développé et validé pour la prise en charge de la douleur liée à l'arthrose chez les patients en hémodialyse. Ces derniers n'ont pas participé au développement ou à la validation de l'outil. Mesures: La validité du contenu et la validité apparente de l'algorithme ont été évaluées. La validité du contenu a été mesurée en calculant l'indice de validité de chaque composante (I-CVI) de l'algorithme, ainsi que l'indice de validité à l'échelle globale (S-CVI). La validité apparente a été évaluée en calculant le pourcentage de réponses positives aux énoncés de validité apparente. Méthodologie: Une ébauche de l'algorithme a été développée à partir de recherches de littérature scientifique et d'avis d'experts, puis validée lors d'entretiens avec des cliniciens en néphrologie et en gestion de la douleur. Afin d'évaluer la validité du contenu et la validité apparente de l'algorithme, les cliniciens ont participé à des séries consécutives d'entretiens individuels où ils devaient évaluer la pertinence de chaque composante de l'algorithme et indiquer leur niveau d'accord avec une série d'énoncés. L'indice de validité du contenu de chaque composante (I-CVI) de l'algorithme, l'indice de validité de l'échelle globale (S-CVI) et le pourcentage de réponses positives aux énoncés ont été calculés après chaque tour. L'algorithme a ensuite été révisé par l'équipe de recherche en réponse aux résultats. L'algorithme final fournit une approche par étapes pour la gestion non pharmacologique et pharmacologique (traitement local, oral, opioïdes) de la douleur. Résultats: En tout, 18 cliniciens provenant de 7 établissements de Hamilton et de la région du Grand Toronto ont été interviewés (10 pharmaciens, 5 infirmières praticiennes et 3 médecins). L'indice S-CVI moyen de l'algorithme pour les trois séries d'entrevues était de 0,93. Au moins 78 % des participants ont fourni des réponses positives aux énoncés de validité apparente. Limites: L'algorithme a été élaboré à partir des données fournies par des cliniciens travaillant dans la province de l'Ontario, ce qui limite sa généralisabilité dans les autres provinces. Aussi, l'algorithme n'inclut pas le point de vue des prestataires de soins primaires ou des patients/soignants. Conclusion: Un algorithme de prise en charge de la douleur liée à l'arthrose chez les patients en hémodialyse a été développé et validé par des experts afin de normaliser les pratiques et d'encourager les cliniciens à utiliser des traitements fondés sur les preuves et à traiter les symptômes psychosociaux de la douleur. L'algorithme ayant montré un degré élevé de validité du contenu et de validité apparente, il a ainsi le potentiel d'améliorer la gestion de la douleur liée à l'arthrose chez les patients en hémodialyse. Les recherches à venir évalueront l'application de l'algorithme dans divers contextes d'hémodialyse.

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.

Patients' experiences of medication management while navigating ongoing care between outpatient services: A qualitative case study of patients on hemodialysis.

Background: Patients on hemodialysis have complex medical diagnoses and medication regimens, requiring access to numerous health services and consultation with various healthcare providers. While interprofessional collaboration can optimize care among hemodialysis patients, these patients commonly experience medication-related problems and frequent hospitalizations resulting from miscommunications and mismanagement of medications. Objectives: This study aims to capture the lived experiences of patients on hemodialysis to reveal their medication management needs as they navigate ongoing care between various outpatient services. Methods: A qualitative methodology was used to explore the perspectives of hemodialysis patients. One-on-one, in-person, semi-structured interviews were conducted at an outpatient hemodialysis clinic located inside an urban teaching hospital. English-speaking adults 18 years and older who have been followed at the clinic for at least three months were selected through random, convenience sampling. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Patients were recruited and data were collected iteratively and continued until data saturation was reached. Data was analyzed through the lens of the Picker Principles of Patient Centered Care using a general inductive approach. Results: A total of nine interviews were conducted. Two major themes, medication management and care navigation, were identified. Though patients had a wealth of knowledge about their medications, and they were motivated to self-manage their medications to enhance their well-being, they experienced barriers with medication management. Patients further expressed challenges with navigating care and spoke of the importance of having good rapport with healthcare providers who are attentive to their needs. Conclusions: The results revealed a need for improved support for self-care and interprofessional collaboration to possibly reduce the burden of medications and care fragmentation experienced by patients and improve continuity of care for patients.

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.

Identifying strategies that support equitable person-centred osteoarthritis care for diverse women: content analysis of guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Women are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access early diagnosis and management, or experience OA care tailored through person-centred approaches to their needs and preferences, particularly racialized women. One way to support clinicians in optimizing OA care is through clinical guidelines. We aimed to examine the content of OA guidelines for guidance on providing equitable, person-centred care to disadvantaged groups including women. METHODS: We searched indexed databases and websites for English-language OA-relevant guidelines published in 2000 or later by non-profit organizations. We used manifest content analysis to extract data, and summary statistics and text to describe guideline characteristics, person-centred care (PCC) using a six-domain PCC framework, OA prevalence or barriers by intersectional factors, and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care. RESULTS: We included 36 OA guidelines published from 2003 to 2021 in 8 regions or countries. Few (39%) development panels included patients. While most (81%) guidelines included at least one PCC domain, guidance was often brief or vague, few addressed exchange information, respond to emotions and manage uncertainty, and none referred to fostering a healing relationship. Few (39%) guidelines acknowledged or described greater prevalence of OA among particular groups; only 3 (8%) noted that socioeconomic status was a barrier to OA care, and only 2 (6%) offered guidance to clinicians on how to improve equitable access to OA care: assess acceptability, availability, accessibility, and affordability of self-management interventions; and employ risk assessment tools to identify patients without means to cope well at home after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that OA guidelines do not support clinicians in caring for diverse persons with OA who face disadvantages due to intersectional factors that influence access to and quality of care. Developers could strengthen OA guidelines by incorporating guidance for PCC and for equity that could be drawn from existing frameworks and tools, and by including diverse persons with OA on guideline development panels. Future research is needed to identify multi-level (patient, clinician, system) strategies that could be implemented via guidelines or in other ways to improve equitable, person-centred OA care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was informed by a team of researchers, collaborators, and thirteen diverse women with lived experience, who contributed to planning, and data collection, analysis and interpretation by reviewing study materials and providing verbal (during meetings) and written (via email) feedback.