The Development and Evaluation of Personalized Training in Shared Decision-making Skills for Rheumatologists.

OBJECTIVE: Many factors influence a patient's preference in engaging in shared decision making (SDM). Several training programs have been developed for teaching SDM to physicians, but none of them focused on the patients' preferences. We developed an SDM training program for rheumatologists with a specific focus on patients' preferences and assessed its effects. METHODS: A training program was developed, pilot tested, and given to 30 rheumatologists. Immediately after the training and 10 weeks later, rheumatologists were asked to complete a questionnaire to evaluate the training. Patients were asked before and after the training to complete a questionnaire on patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Ten weeks after the training, 57% of the rheumatologists felt they were capable of estimating the need of patients to engage in SDM, 62% felt their communication skills had improved, and 33% reported they engaged more in SDM. Up to 268 patients were included. Overall, patient satisfaction was high, but there were no statistically significant differences in patient satisfaction before and after the training. CONCLUSION: The training was received well by the participating rheumatologists. Even in a population of rheumatologists that communicates well, 62% reported improvement. The training program increased awareness about the principles of SDM in patients and physicians, and improved physicians' communicative skills, but did not lead to further improvement in patients' satisfaction, which was already high.

Systematic review of rheumatoid arthritis clinical studies: Suboptimal statistical analysis of radiological data.

INTRODUCTION: The distribution of progression scores in rheumatoid arthritis is highly skewed, requiring advanced statistical analysis techniques, with different techniques resulting in different outcomes. METHODS: Three databases were searched to identify rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials and observational studies that described radiographic analysis techniques, comparing at least two groups. RESULTS: Of 5980 identified papers, 225 were eligible for data extraction. Parametric techniques (t-tests, ANOVA or linear regression) were used in 39 studies, of which 18% took the skewed distribution into account. In 53 studies, continuous data was categorized and analyzed with binomial or ordinal methods (chi-square tests or logistic regression). Two studies treated the outcome as a 'count' outcome variable (applying a Poisson). CONCLUSION: There is large heterogeneity in the analysis strategy of radiographic progression in recent rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials and observational studies, with the majority of studies applying simple, suboptimal or inappropriate methods.

Quality in rheumatoid arthritis care.

While most rheumatology practices are characterized by strong commitment to quality of care and continuous improvement to limit disability and optimize quality of life for patients and their families, the actual step toward improvement is often difficult. This is because there are still barriers to be addressed and facilitators to be captured before a satisfying and cost-effective practice management is installed. Therefore, this review aims to assist practicing rheumatologists with quality improvement of their daily practice, focusing on care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. First we define quality of care as "the degree to which health services for individuals and populations increase the likelihood of desired health outcomes and are consistent with current professional knowledge". Often quality is determined by the interplay between structure, processes, and outcomes of care, which is also reflected in the corresponding indicators to measure quality of care. Next, a brief overview is given of the current treatment strategies used in RA, focusing on the tight control strategy, since this strategy forms the basis of international treatment guidelines. Adherence to tight control strategies leads, also in daily practice, to better outcomes in patients with regard to disease control, functional status, and work productivity. Despite evidence in favor of tight control strategies, adherence in daily practice is often challenging. Therefore, the next part of the review focuses on possible barriers and facilitators of adherence, and potential interventions to improve quality of care. Many different barriers and facilitators are known and targeting these can be effective in changing care, but these effects are rather small to moderate. With regard to RA, few studies have tried to improve care, such as a study aiming to increase the number of disease activity measures done by a combination of education and feedback. Two out of the three studies showed markedly positive effects of their interventions, suggesting that change is possible. Finally, a simple step-by-step plan is described, which could be used by rheumatologists in daily practice wanting to improve their RA patient care.