Decision-Making Around COVID-19 Public Health Measures and Implications for Self-Care Activities: Experiences of Persons With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to advance understanding of how persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience decision-making about adopting public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Persons living with RA partnered throughout this nested qualitative study. One-to-one semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with participants with RA between December 2020 and December 2021. They were strategically sampled from a randomized controlled trial that was underway to test a physical activity counseling intervention. Analysis was guided by reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants (aged 26-86 years; 36 women) in British Columbia, Canada were interviewed. We developed three themes. Participants described how their decision-making about public health measures related to 1) "upholding moral values of togetherness" because decisions were intertwined with moral values of neighborliness and reciprocity. Some adapted their self-care routines to uphold these moral values; 2) "relational autonomy-supports and challenges," because they sometimes felt supported and undermined in different relational settings (eg, by family, local community, or provincial government); and 3) "differing trust in information sources," in which decisions were shaped by the degree of faith they had in various information sources, including their rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: Across themes, experiences of decision-making about public health measures during the pandemic were embedded with moral concepts of solidarity, autonomy, and trust, with implications for how persons with RA chose and sustained their self-care activities. Insights gained help sensitize researchers and clinicians to moral issues experienced by persons with RA, which may inform support for self-care activities during and after the pandemic.

Effect of Immunosuppressive or Immunomodulatory Agents on Severe COVID-19 Outcomes: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the association between immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agent (IIA) exposure and severe COVID-19 outcomes in a population-based cohort study. METHODS: Participants were 18 years or older, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between February 6, 2020, and August 15, 2021, and were from administrative health data for the entire province of British Columbia, Canada. IIA use within 3 months prior to positive SARS-CoV-2 test included conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (antimalarials, methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, individually), immunosuppressants (azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil/mycophenolate sodium [MMF], cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, individually and collectively), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologics (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, collectively), non-TNFi biologics or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) (rituximab separately from abatacept, anakinra, secukinumab, tocilizumab, tofacitinib and ustekinumab collectively), and glucocorticoids. Severe COVID-19 outcomes were hospitalizations for COVID-19, ICU admissions, and deaths within 60 days of a positive test. Exposure score-overlap weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics of participants with IIA use compared with nonuse of that IIA. Logistic regression measured the association between IIA use and severe COVID-19 outcomes. RESULTS: From 147,301 participants, we identified 515 antimalarial, 573 methotrexate, 72 leflunomide, 180 sulfasalazine, 468 immunosuppressant, 378 TNFi biologic, 49 rituximab, 144 other non-TNFi biologic or tsDMARD, and 1348 glucocorticoid prescriptions. Risk of hospitalizations for COVID-19 was significantly greater for MMF (odds ratio [95% CI]): 2.82 [1.81-4.40], all immunosuppressants: 2.08 [1.51-2.87], and glucocorticoids: 1.63 [1.36-1.96], relative to nonuse. Similar outcomes were seen for ICU admission and MMF: 2.52 [1.34-4.74], immunosuppressants: 2.88 [1.73-4.78], and glucocorticoids: 1.86 [1.37-2.54]. Only glucocorticoids use was associated with a significant increase in 60-day mortality: 1.58 [1.21-2.06]. No other IIAs displayed statistically significant associations with severe COVID-19 outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current use of MMF and glucocorticoids were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with nonuse. These results emphasize the variety of circumstances of patients taking IIAs.

Canadians' views on the use of routinely collected data in health research: a patient-oriented cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about Canadians' knowledge of and level of support for using administrative and other large, routinely collected data for health research, despite the benefits of this type of research to patients, health care systems and society. We sought to benchmark the views of Canadian adults on this topic. METHODS: Researchers and patient leaders of 3 joint and skin disease organizations codeveloped a cross-sectional online survey that was conducted between January and August 2017. The patient partners were engaged as full partners. Recruitment was mainly through the organizations' websites, email and social media. The survey captured respondents' initial perceptions, then (after background information on the topic was provided) elicited their views on the benefits of health research using routinely collected data, data access/privacy concerns, ongoing perceptions and educational needs. RESULTS: Of the 230 people who consented, 183 (79.6%) started the survey, and 151 (65.6%) completed the survey. Of the 151, 117 (77.5%) were women, 84 (55.6%) were British Columbians, 87 (57.6%) were university graduates, and 101 (66.9%) had a chronic disease. At the beginning of the survey, 119 respondents (78.8%) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data for health research. Respondents identified the ability to study long-term treatment effects and rare events (114 [75.5%]) and large numbers of people (110 [72.8%]) as key benefits. Deidentification of personal information was the top privacy measure (135 [89.4%]), and 101 respondents (66.9%) wanted to learn more about data stewards' granting access to data. On survey completion, more respondents (141 [93.4%]) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data, but only 87 (57.6%) were confident about data security and privacy. INTERPRETATION: Respondents generally supported the use of deidentified routinely collected data for health research. Although further investigation is needed with more representative samples, our findings suggest that additional education, especially about access and privacy controls, may enhance public support for research endeavours using these data.

Patient education and self-management of musculoskeletal diseases.

The research literature reports that patient (consumer) education and self-management programs and practices help people with chronic disease live better lives by improving health outcomes and psycho-emotional and psychosocial measures. However, arthritis charities that offer self-management programs in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada anecdotally report significant drops in enrollment, and emerging data suggest that these types of programs are not a panacea for people attending them. This chapter will provide the reader with the following: an introduction to patient education and self-management; a discussion on participation rates in patient education and arthritis self-management programs; an overview of the 'state-of-the-art' in patient education and self-management programs; new ideas on patient education delivery models; tips on improving physician-patient communication; and suggested areas of research required to advance the area of patient education and self-management.