Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: mixed methods analysis of patient-derived attributional evidence in the international INSPIRE project.

OBJECTIVE: Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) relies heavily on clinician assessment. Limited clinic time, variable knowledge, and symptom under-reporting contributes to discordance between clinician assessments and patient symptoms. We obtained attributional data directly from patients and clinicians in order to estimate and compare potential levels of direct attribution to SLE of multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms using different patient-derived measures. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data analysed included: prevalence and frequency of neuropsychiatric symptoms, response to corticosteroids, and concurrence of neuropsychiatric symptoms with non-neuropsychiatric SLE disease activity. SLE patients were also compared with controls and inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients to explore attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct disease effects on the brain/nervous system. RESULTS: We recruited 2,817 participants, including 400 clinicians. SLE patients (n = 609) reported significantly higher prevalences of neuropsychiatric symptoms than controls (n = 463) and IA patients (n = 489). SLE and IA patients' quantitative data demonstrated multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms relapsing/remitting with other disease symptoms such as joint pain. Over 45% of SLE patients reported resolution/improvement of fatigue, positive sensory symptoms, severe headache, and cognitive dysfunction with corticosteroids. Evidence of direct attributability in SLE was highest for hallucinations and severe headache. SLE patients had greater reported improvement from corticosteroids (p= 0.008), and greater relapsing-remitting with disease activity (p< 0.001) in the comparisons with IA patients for severe headache. Clinician and patients reported insufficient time to discuss patient-reported attributional evidence. Symptoms viewed as indirectly related/non-attributable were often less prioritised for discussion and treatment. CONCLUSION: We found evidence indicating varying levels of direct attributability of both common and previously unexplored neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients, with hallucinations and severe headache assessed as the most directly attributable. There may also be-currently under-estimated-direct effects on the nervous system in IA and other systemic rheumatological diseases.

Attribution of neuropsychiatric symptoms and prioritisation of evidence in the diagnosis of neuropsychiatric lupus: mixed methods analysis of patient and clinician perspectives from the international INSPIRE study.

OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychiatric lupus (NPSLE) is challenging to diagnose. Many neuropsychiatric symptoms, such as headache and hallucinations, cannot be verified by tests or clinician assessment. We investigated prioritisations of methods for diagnosing NPSLE and attributional views. METHODS: Thematic and comparative analyses were used to investigate how clinicians prioritise sources of evidence from a 13-item list, and explore discordances in clinician and patient perspectives on attribution. RESULTS: We identified high levels of variability and uncertainty in clinicians' assessments of neuropsychiatric symptoms in SLE patients. In attributional decisions, clinicians (surveys n = 400, interviews n = 50) ranked clinicians' assessments above diagnostic tests (many of which they reported were often unenlightening in NPSLE). Clinicians ranked patient opinion of disease activity last, and 46% of patients reported never/rarely having been asked if their SLE was flaring, despite experienced patients often having "attributional insight". SLE Patients (surveys n = 676, interviews n = 27) estimated higher attributability of neuropsychiatric symptoms to the direct effects of SLE on the nervous system than clinicians (p < 0.001 for all symptoms excluding mania), and 24% reported that their self-assessment of disease activity was never/rarely concordant with their clinicians. Reports of misattributions were common, particularly of non-verifiable diffuse symptoms. Terminology differed between clinicians and influenced attribution estimates. CONCLUSION: NPSLE diagnostic tests and clinician assessments have numerous limitations, particularly in detecting diffuse neuropsychiatric symptoms that can be directly attributable and benefit from immunosuppression. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient attributional insights-although also subject to limitations-may improve attribution decision-making. Consensus regarding terminology and interpretations of "direct attributability" is required.

Prevalence and identification of neuropsychiatric symptoms in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases: an international mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: A limited range of neuropsychiatric symptoms have been reported in systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), with varied symptom prevalence. This study aimed to investigate a wider range of potential symptoms than previous studies, compare patient self-reports with clinician estimates, and explore barriers to symptom identification. METHODS: Mixed methods were used. Data from SARDs patients (n = 1853) were compared with controls (n = 463) and clinicians (n = 289). In-depth interviews (n = 113) were analysed thematically. Statistical tests compared means of survey items between: patients and controls, 8 different SARD groups, and clinician specialities. RESULTS: Self-reported lifetime prevalences of all 30 neuropsychiatric symptoms investigated (including cognitive, sensorimotor and psychiatric) were significantly higher in SARDs than controls. Validated instruments assessed 55% of SARDs patients as currently having depression and 57% anxiety. Barriers to identifying neuropsychiatric symptoms included: 1) limits to knowledge, guidelines, objective tests, and inter-specialty cooperation; 2) subjectivity, invisibility and believability of symptoms; and 3) under-eliciting, under-reporting and under-documenting. A lower proportion of clinicians (4%) reported never/rarely asking patients about mental health symptoms than the 74% of patients who reported never/rarely being asked in clinic (p< 0.001). Over 50% of SARDs patients had never/rarely reported their mental health symptoms to clinicians; a proportion under-estimated at < 10% by clinicians (p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Neuropsychiatric symptom self-reported prevalences are significantly higher in SARDs than controls, and greatly underestimated by most clinicians. Research relying on medical records and current guidelines is unlikely to accurately reflect patients' experiences of neuropsychiatric symptoms. Improved inter-specialty communication and greater patient involvement is needed in SARD care and research.

Will 'the feeling of abandonment' remain? Persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand rheumatology patient and clinician pandemic-related experiences, medical relationships and behaviours in order to help identify the persisting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and inform efforts to ameliorate the negative impacts and build upon the positive ones. METHODS: Rheumatology patients and clinicians completed surveys (patients n = 1543, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 41, clinicians n = 32) between April 2021 and August 2021. A cohort (n = 139) of systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease patients was also followed up from March 2020 to April 2021. Analyses used sequential mixed methods. Pre-specified outcome measures included the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental wellbeing score (WEMWBS), satisfaction with care and healthcare behaviours. RESULTS: We identified multiple ongoing pandemic-induced/increased barriers to receiving care. The percentage of patients agreeing they were medically supported reduced from 74.4% pre-pandemic to 39.7% during-pandemic. Ratings for medical support, medical security and trust were significantly (P <0.001) positively correlated with patient WEMWBS and healthcare behaviours, and decreased during the pandemic. Healthcare-seeking was reduced, potentially long-term, including from patients feeling 'abandoned' by clinicians, and a 'burden' from government messaging to protect the NHS. Blame and distrust were frequent, particularly between primary and secondary care, and towards the UK government, who <10% of clinicians felt had supported clinicians during the pandemic. Clinicians' efforts were reported to be impeded by inefficient administration systems and chronic understaffing, suggestive of the pandemic having exposed and exacerbated existing healthcare system weaknesses. CONCLUSION: Without concerted action-such as rebuilding trust, improved administrative systems and more support for clinicians-barriers to care and negative impacts of the pandemic on trust, medical relationships, medical security and patient help-seeking may persist in the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later COVID-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

Telemedicine in rheumatology: a mixed methods study exploring acceptability, preferences and experiences among patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: The Covid-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid global transition towards telemedicine; yet much remains unknown about telemedicine's acceptability and safety in rheumatology. To help address this gap and inform practice, this study investigated rheumatology patient and clinician experiences and views of telemedicine. METHODS: Sequential mixed methodology combined analysis of surveys and in-depth interviews. Between and within-group differences in views of telemedicine were examined for patients and clinicians using t-tests. RESULTS: Surveys (patients n = 1340, clinicians n = 111) and interviews (patients n = 31, clinicians n = 29) were completed between April 2021 and July 2021. The majority of patients were from the UK (96%) and had inflammatory arthritis (32%) or lupus (32%). Patients and clinicians rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face consultations in almost all categories, although >60% found it more convenient. Building trusting medical relationships and assessment accuracy were great concerns (93% of clinicians and 86% of patients rated telemedicine as worse than face-to-face for assessment accuracy). Telemedicine was perceived to have increased misdiagnoses, inequalities and barriers to accessing care. Participants reported highly disparate telemedicine delivery and responsiveness from primary and secondary care. Although rheumatology clinicians highlighted the importance of a quick response to flaring patients, only 55% of patients were confident that their rheumatology department would respond within 48 hours. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate a preference for face-to-face consultations. Some negative experiences may be due to the pandemic rather than telemedicine specifically, although the risk of greater diagnostic inaccuracies using telemedicine is unlikely to be fully resolved. Training, choice, careful patient selection, and further consultation with clinicians and patients is required to increase telemedicine's acceptability and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This telemedicine study is part of a pre-registered longitudinal multi-stage trial, the LISTEN study (ISRCTN-14966097), with later Covid-related additions registered in March 2021, including a pre-registered statistical analysis plan.

Medication decision-making and adherence in lupus: patient-physician discordance and the impact of previous 'adverse medical experiences'.

OBJECTIVES: Medication adherence is critical in the successful management of lupus. There is very limited existing literature on reasons why non-adherence is not reported. This study explores the impact of current and previous medical experiences on patient satisfaction, adherence and reporting of non-adherence. METHODS: Mixed methodology involved thematic analysis of in-depth interviews (n = 23) to further explore the statistically analysed quantitative survey findings (n = 186). RESULTS: This study identified five themes: (i) physician-patient discordance and a 'hierarchy of evidence' in medication decisions; (ii) the association of adherence with satisfaction with care; (iii) the persisting impact of past adverse medical experiences (AMEs); (iv) the dynamic balance of patient-physician control; and (v) holistic care, beyond a purely medication-based focus. Improving quality of life (43% of participants) and a supportive medical relationship (24%) were the main reasons for adherence. Patient-priorities and self-reported symptoms were perceived as less important to physicians than organ-protection and blood results. Non-reporters of non-adherence, non-adherers and those with past AMEs (e.g. psychosomatic misdiagnoses) had statistically significant lower satisfaction with care. The importance of listening to patients was a key component of every theme, and associated with patient satisfaction and adherence. The mean rating for rheumatologist's listening skills was 2.88 for non-adherers compared with 3.53 for other participants (mean difference 0.65, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Patients would like more weight and discussion given to self-reported symptoms and quality of life in medication decisions. Greater understanding and interventions are required to alleviate the persisting impact of past AMEs on some patients' wellbeing, behaviour and current medical relationships.

COVID-19 and shielding: experiences of UK patients with lupus and related diseases.

OBJECTIVE: The shielding guidance in the UK for the clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) commenced on 23 March 2020 in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of the pandemic and shielding on patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). METHODS: This was a mixed-methods cohort study (n = 111) including pre-lockdown baseline surveys (March 2020), follow-up surveys (June 2020) and in-depth interviews during July 2020 (n = 25). RESULTS: Most participants had a high level of anxiety regarding their mortality risk from COVID-19 and supported the concept of shielding. Shielding allocations and communications were perceived as inconsistently applied and delivered. More than half of those not classified as CEV reported feeling abandoned, at increased risk and with no support. Shielding communications increased feelings of being 'cared about', but also increased fear, and the 'vulnerable' labelling was perceived by some to damage social and self-identity. More than 80% of those classified as CEV stated that the classification and subsequent communications had changed their social-mixing behaviour. Despite many negative impacts of COVID-19 and shielding/lockdown being identified, including isolation, fear and reduced medical care, the quantitative data during the pandemic showed increases in most measures of wellbeing (which was low at both time points) from pre-lockdown, including reductions in the impact of fatigue and pain (P-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Shielding classifications and communications were, in general, viewed positively, although they were perceived as inconsistently delivered and anxiety-provoking by some participants. More frequent positively framed communication and wellbeing support could benefit all SARD patients. Slower-paced lockdown lifestyles might confer health/wellbeing benefits for some people with chronic diseases.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the medical care and health-care behaviour of patients with lupus and other systemic autoimmune diseases: a mixed methods longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore the self-reported impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on changes to care and behaviour in UK patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases, to help ensure that patient experiences are considered in future pandemic planning. METHODS: This was a longitudinal mixed methods study, with a cohort completing baseline surveys in March 2020 and follow-up surveys in June 2020 (n = 111), combined with thematic analysis of the LUPUS UK forum and participant interviews (n = 28). RESULTS: Cancellations of routine care and difficulties in accessing medical support contributed to some participants deteriorating physically, including reports of hospitalizations. The majority of participants reported that fear of COVID-19 and disruptions to their medical care had also adversely impacted their mental health. Feeling medically supported during the pandemic was correlated with multiple measures of mental health and perceptions of care, including the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being score (r = 0.44, P = 0.01). Five themes were identified: detrimental reduction in care; disparities in contact and communication (medical security vs abandonment sub-theme); perceived and actual endangerment; the perfect storm of reduced clinician ability to help and increased patient reticence to seek help; and identifying the patients most vulnerable to reduced medical care. CONCLUSION: The diversion of resources away from chronic disease care was perceived by many participants to have caused adverse outcomes. Fear about increased vulnerability to COVID-19 was high, contributing to health-care-avoidant behaviours. This study also highlights the influence of clinician accessibility and patients feeling medically supported on multiple measures of physical and mental health.

Is it me? The impact of patient-physician interactions on lupus patients' psychological well-being, cognition and health-care-seeking behaviour.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to explore the impact of patient-physician interactions, pre- and post-diagnosis, on lupus and UCTD patients' psychological well-being, cognition and health-care-seeking behaviour. METHODS: Participants were purposively sampled from the 233 responses to a survey on patient experiences of medical support. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted and themes generated using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study identified six principal themes: (i) the impact of the diagnostic journey; (ii) the influence of key physician(s) on patient trust and security, with most participants reporting at least one positive medical relationship; (iii) disparities in patient-physician priorities, with patients desiring more support with quality-of-life concerns; (iv) persisting insecurity and distrust, which was prevalent and largely influenced by previous and anticipated disproportionate (often perceived as dismissive) physician responses to symptoms and experiences of widespread inadequate physician knowledge of systemic autoimmune diseases; (v) changes to health-care-seeking behaviours, such as curtailing help-seeking or under-reporting symptoms; and (vi) empowerment, including shared medical decision-making and knowledge acquisition, which can mitigate insecurity and improve care. CONCLUSION: Negative medical interactions pre- and post-diagnosis can cause a loss of self-confidence and a loss of confidence and trust in the medical profession. This insecurity can persist even in subsequent positive medical relationships and should be addressed. Key physicians implementing empowering and security-inducing strategies, including being available in times of health crises and validating patient-reported symptoms, might lead to more trusting medical relationships and positive health-care-seeking behaviour.

Medically explained symptoms: a mixed methods study of diagnostic, symptom and support experiences of patients with lupus and related systemic autoimmune diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to explore patient experiences and views of their symptoms, delays in diagnosis, misdiagnoses and medical support, to identify common experiences, preferences and unmet needs. METHODS: Following a review of LUPUS UK's online forum, a questionnaire was posted online during December 2018. This was an exploratory mixed methods study, with qualitative data analysed thematically and combined with descriptive and statistically analysed quantitative data. RESULTS: There were 233 eligible respondents. The mean time to diagnosis from first experiencing symptoms was 6 years 11 months. Seventy-six per cent reported at least one misdiagnosis for symptoms subsequently attributed to their systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease. Mental health/non-organic misdiagnoses constituted 47% of reported misdiagnoses and were indicated to have reduced trust in physicians and to have changed future health-care-seeking behaviour. Perceptions of physician knowledge and listening skills were highly correlated with patient ratings of trust. The symptom burden was high. Fatigue had the greatest impact on activities of daily living, yet the majority reported receiving no support or poor support in managing it. Assessing and treating patients holistically and with empathy was strongly felt to increase diagnostic accuracy and improve medical relationships. CONCLUSION: Patient responses indicated that timely diagnosis could be facilitated if physicians had greater knowledge of lupus/related systemic autoimmune diseases and were more amenable to listening to and believing patient reports of their symptoms. Patient priorities included physicians viewing them holistically, with more emotional support and assistance in improving quality of life, especially in relation to fatigue.