"I couldn't carry on taking a drug like that": A qualitative study of patient perspectives on side effects from rheumatology drugs.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the OMERACT Core Outcome Set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials evaluating shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: Following the OMERACT Handbook methods, our Working Group (WG), comprised of 90 members, including 17 patient research partners (PRPs) and 73 clinicians and researchers, had six virtual meetings in addition to email exchanges to develop draft definitions and descriptions. The WG then conducted an international survey of its members to gain consensus on the definitions and descriptions. Finally, the WG members had virtual meetings and e-mail exchanges to review survey results and finalize names, definitions and descriptions of the domains. RESULTS: WG members contributed to developing the definitions. Fifty-two members representing four continents and 13 countries completed the survey, including 15 PRPs, 33 clinicians and 37 researchers. PRPs and clinicians/researchers agreed with all definitions and descriptions with agreements ranging from 87% to 100%. Respondents suggested wording changes to the names, definitions and descriptions to better reflect the domains. Discussions led to further simplification and clarification to address common questions/concerns about the domains. CONCLUSION: Our WG reached consensus on the definitions and descriptions of the domains of the core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. This step is crucial to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The current study provides consensus-based definitions and descriptions for the domains of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions from patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers. This is a crucial step to understand each domain and provides the foundation to identify instruments to measure each domain for inclusion in the Core Outcome Measurement Set for trials of SDM interventions.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Core Set of Domains for Outcome Measures in Behçet's Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: An unmet need exists for reliable, validated, and widely-accepted outcome measures for randomized clinical trials in Behçet's syndrome. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Behçet's Syndrome Working Group, a large, multidisciplinary group of experts in Behçet's syndrome and patients with Behçet's syndrome, had an objective of developing a core set of data-driven outcome measures for use in all clinical trials of Behçet's syndrome. METHODS: The core domain set was developed through a comprehensive, iterative, multistage project that included a systematic review, a focus group meeting and qualitative patient interviews, a survey among experts in Behçet's syndrome, a Delphi exercise involving both patients and physician experts in Behçet's syndrome, and use of the data, insight, and feedback generated by these processes to develop a final core domain set. RESULTS: All steps were completed and domains were delineated across the organ systems involved in this disease. Since trials in Behçet's syndrome often focus on specific manifestations and not on the disease in its entirety, the final proposed core set includes 5 domains mandatory for study in all trials in Behçet's syndrome (disease activity, new organ involvement, quality of life, adverse events, and death) with additional subdomains mandatory for study of specific organ-systems. The final core set was endorsed at the 2018 OMERACT meeting. CONCLUSION: The core set of domains in Behçet's syndrome provides the foundation through which the international research community, including clinical investigators, patients, the biopharmaceutical industry, and government regulatory bodies can harmonize the study of this complex disease, compare findings across studies, and advance development of effective therapies.

Patient preferences to value health outcomes in rheumatology clinical trials: Report from the OMERACT special interest group✰.

OBJECTIVE: To inform a research plan for future studies by obtaining stakeholder input on the application of preference-based methods to clinical trial design. METHODS: We conducted a virtual OMERACT session to encourage stakeholder engagement. We developed materials for the session to facilitate discussion based on identified case examples and feedback sessions. RESULTS: Participants prioritized incorporating patient preferences in all aspects of trial design with an emphasis on outcome selection. Participants highlighted the need for careful consideration around preference heterogeneity and equity factors. CONCLUSION: Including patient preferences in trial design was considered a priority requiring further exploration to develop comprehensive guidance.

Endorsement of the OMERACT core domain set for shared decision making interventions in rheumatology trials: Results from a multi-stepped consensus-building approach.

OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set for rheumatology trials of shared decision making (SDM) interventions. METHODS: The process followed the OMERACT Filter 2.1 methodology, and used consensus-building methods, with patients involved since the inception. After developing the draft core domain set in previous research, we conducted five steps: (i) improving the draft core domain set; (ii) developing and disseminating white-board videos to promote its understanding; (iii) conducting an electronic survey to gather feedback on the draft core domain set; (iv) finalizing the core domain set and developing summaries, a plenary session video and discussion boards to promote its understanding; and (v) conducting virtual workshops with voting to endorse the core domain set. RESULTS: A total of 167 participants from 28 countries answered the survey (62% were patients/caregivers). Most participants rated domains as relevant (81%-95%) and clear (82%-93%). A total of 149 participants (n = 48 patients/caregivers, 101 clinicians/researchers) participated in virtual workshops and voted on the proposed core domain set which received endorsement by 95%. Endorsed domains are: 1- Knowledge of options, their potential benefits and harms; 2- Chosen option aligned with each patient's values and preferences; 3- Confidence in the chosen option; 4- Satisfaction with the decision-making process; 5- Adherence to the chosen option and 6- Potential negative consequences of the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: We achieved consensus among an international group of stakeholders on the OMERACT core domain set for rheumatology trials of SDM interventions. Future research will develop the Core Outcome Measurement Set. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Prior to this study, there had been no consensus on the OMERACT core domain set for SDM interventions. The current study shows that the OMERACT core domain set achieved a high level of endorsement by key stakeholders, including patients/caregivers, clinicians and researchers.

OMERACT consensus-based operational definition of contextual factors in rheumatology clinical trials: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an operational definition of contextual factors (CF) [1]. METHODS: Based on previously conducted interviews, we presented three CF types in a Delphi survey; Effect Modifying -, Outcome Influencing - and Measurement Affecting CFs. Subsequently, a virtual Special Interest Group (SIG) session was held for in depth discussion of Effect Modifying CFs. RESULTS: Of 161 Delphi participants, 129 (80%) completed both rounds. After two rounds, we reached consensus (≥70% agreeing) for all but two statements. The 45 SIG participants were broadly supportive. CONCLUSION: Through consensus we developed an operational definition of CFs, which was well received by OMERACT members.

Endorsement of the domains of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) flare: A report from the OMERACT 2020 inaugural virtual consensus vote from the flares in OA working group.

OBJECTIVE: Towards developing an instrument to measure knee and hip osteoarthritis (KHOA) flare, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Flares in OA Working Group first sought to identify and define relevant domains of flare in KHOA. METHODS: Guided by OMERACT Filter 2.1, candidate domains were identified from data generated in interviews, in English or French, with persons with KHOA and health professionals (HPs) who treat OA. The first and second rounds of an online Delphi process with patients and HPs, including researchers, selected relevant domains. The third round provided agreement on the selected domains and their definitions. At the virtual OMERACT 2020 workshop, the proposed domains and their definitions were discussed in facilitated breakout groups with patients and HPs. Participants then voted, with consensus set at ≥70%. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews characterizing OA flare were completed with 29 persons with KHOA and 16 HPs. Content was analyzed and grouped into nine clusters. These candidate domains were included in two Delphi rounds, completed by 91 patients and 165 HPs then 50 patients and 116 HPs, per round, respectively. This resulted in selecting five relevant domains. A final Delphi round, completed by 38 patients and 89 HPs, provided agreement on these domains and their definitions. The OMERACT virtual vote included 27 patients and 106 HPs. The domains and their definitions were endorsed with ≥98% agreement. Domains include: Pain, Swelling, Stiffness, Psychological aspects, and Impact of symptoms, all defined "during flare". CONCLUSION: Using OMERACT methodology, we have developed five domains of KHOA flare that were highly endorsed by patients and HPs.

Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults living at home: An evidence and gap map.

Background: By 2030, the global population of people older than 60 years is expected to be higher than the number of children under 10 years, resulting in major health and social care system implications worldwide. Without a supportive environment, whether social or built, diminished functional ability may arise in older people. Functional ability comprises an individual's intrinsic capacity and people's interaction with their environment enabling them to be and do what they value. Objectives: This evidence and gap map aims to identify primary studies and systematic reviews of health and social support services as well as assistive devices designed to support functional ability among older adults living at home or in other places of residence. Search Methods: We systematically searched from inception to August 2018 in: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AgeLine, Campbell Library, ASSIA, Social Science Citation Index and Social Policy & Practice. We conducted a focused search for grey literature and protocols of studies (e.g., ProQuest Theses and Dissertation Global, conference abstract databases, Help Age, PROSPERO, Cochrane and Campbell libraries and ClinicalTrials.gov). Selection Criteria: Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate according to our intervention and outcome framework. We included completed and on-going systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of effectiveness on health and social support services provided at home, assistive products and technology for personal indoor and outdoor mobility and transportation as well as design, construction and building products and technology of buildings for private use such as wheelchairs, and ramps. Data Collection and Analysis: We coded interventions and outcomes, and the number of studies that assessed health inequities across equity factors. We mapped outcomes based on the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) adapted categories: intrinsic capacities (body function and structures) and functional abilities (activities). We assessed methodological quality of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR II checklist. Main Results: After de-duplication, 10,783 records were screened. The map includes 548 studies (120 systematic reviews and 428 randomized controlled trials). Interventions and outcomes were classified using domains from the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Most systematic reviews (n = 71, 59%) were rated low or critically low for methodological quality.The most common interventions were home-based rehabilitation for older adults (n = 276) and home-based health services for disease prevention (n = 233), mostly delivered by visiting healthcare professionals (n = 474). There was a relative paucity of studies on personal mobility, building adaptations, family support, personal support and befriending or friendly visits. The most measured intrinsic capacity domains were mental function (n = 269) and neuromusculoskeletal function (n = 164). The most measured outcomes for functional ability were basic needs (n = 277) and mobility (n = 160). There were few studies which evaluated outcome domains of social participation, financial security, ability to maintain relationships and communication.There was a lack of studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and a gap in the assessment of health equity issues. Authors' Conclusions: There is substantial evidence for interventions to promote functional ability in older adults at home including mostly home-based rehabilitation for older adults and home-based health services for disease prevention. Remotely delivered home-based services are of greater importance to policy-makers and practitioners in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This map of studies published prior to the pandemic provides an initial resource to identify relevant home-based services which may be of interest for policy-makers and practitioners, such as home-based rehabilitation and social support, although these interventions would likely require further adaptation for online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a need to strengthen assessment of social support and mobility interventions and outcomes related to making decisions, building relationships, financial security, and communication in future studies. More studies are needed to assess LMIC contexts and health equity issues.

Core Outcome Sets Specifically for Longterm Observational Studies: OMERACT Special Interest Group Update in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: This is an update from the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core Outcomes in Longterm Observational Studies Special Interest Group with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Preliminary data and proposed next steps were outlined and discussed by participants. RESULTS: Domains identified after initial steps (systematic review and qualitative research) were pain, physical functioning, participation (i.e., work, social), longterm symptoms, fertility/family planning, emotional well-being, coping, financial status, and adverse events including death. CONCLUSION: The group agreed conceptually that short-term core outcomes could be different from longer term ones. Participants emphasized the importance of analyzing the need for core domains specifically for longterm longitudinal observational studies.

OMERACT 2018 Modified Patient-reported Outcome Domain Core Set in the Life Impact Area for Adult Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies.

OBJECTIVE: To present and vote on a myositis modified patient-reported outcome core domain set in the life impact area at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018. METHODS: Based on results from international focus groups and Delphi surveys, a draft core set was developed. RESULTS: Domains muscle symptoms, fatigue, level of physical activity, and pain reached ≥ 70% consensus and were mandatory to assess in all trials. Domains lung, joint, and skin symptoms were mandatory in specific circumstances. This core set was endorsed by > 85% at OMERACT 2018. CONCLUSION: We propose a life impact core set for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and will proceed with instrument selections.

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. METHODS: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. RESULTS: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. CONCLUSION: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient's perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.

PsAID12 Provisionally Endorsed at OMERACT 2018 as Core Outcome Measure to Assess Psoriatic Arthritis-specific Health-related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) working group is developing a Core Outcome Measurement Set for PsA clinical trials [randomized controlled trials (RCT) and longitudinal observational studies (LOS)] using the OMERACT Filter 2.1 instrument selection algorithm. Our objective was to assess the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID12) for the measurement of the core domain PsA-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: PsAID12 measurement property evidence gathered in a systematic literature review, and additional analyses conducted in LOS, were used to inform a consensus process. Analyses that had not been published were independently reviewed by the OMERACT technical advisory group. Data and process were presented, discussed in breakout groups, and voted on at the OMERACT conference (Terrigal, Australia, May 2018). RESULTS: PsAID12 fulfilled the green (good to go) OMERACT standards for domain match, feasibility, reliability, and construct/longitudinal construct validity. Discrimination and thresholds of meaning were amber (caution but good enough to go forward). The overall working group recommendation was amber/provisional endorsement of PsAID12 for measuring PsA-specific HRQOL in RCT and LOS. Of 96 participants who voted at the PsA OMERACT workshop, 87.5% (84) voted "yes" to endorse this recommendation; 14 of the 96 were patient research partners (PRP) and 93% of them (13) voted "yes"; 82 participants were not PRP and 87% of them (71) voted "yes." CONCLUSION: At OMERACT 2018, PsAID12 was the first patient-reported outcome measure provisionally endorsed as a core outcome measure for disease-specific HRQOL in PsA clinical trials. PsAID12 discrimination and improvement thresholds will be studied in future RCT.

PROTOCOL: Health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability of older adults: Evidence and gap map.

This is a protocol for a Campbell Evidence and Gap Map. The objectives are to identify and assess the available evidence on health, social care and technological interventions to improve functional ability among older adults.

GRADE equity guidelines 4: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: evidence to decision process.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members. RESULTS: Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: (1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and (2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples. CONCLUSION: Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework. This is the fourth and final paper in a series about considering equity in the GRADE guideline development process. This series is coming from the GRADE equity subgroup.

Systematically reviewing qualitative studies complements survey design: an exploratory study of barriers to paediatric immunisations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Designing survey questions requires content expertise, awareness of previous qualitative literature, and piloting. We examined surveys addressing parental barriers to vaccinating children to determine if they comprehensively included themes identified in published qualitative studies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of 12 electronic databases and compared questions asked in eligible surveys identified to issues raised in qualitative studies. Issues included nine themes related to harm, six related to distrust, eight to issues of access, and three other issues. RESULTS: The 29 eligible surveys failed to adequately address several important themes identified in qualitative studies. The number that failed to address the following themes were as follows: beliefs that vaccines cause diseases (n = 26); painful (n = 25); distrust of medical community (n = 28); communication problems with staff (n = 25); memories of their own or others adverse experiences (n = 28); fear of long-term effects (n = 26); belief the medical community does not understand adverse events associated with vaccines (n = 28); and parent's own lack of knowledge about diseases (n = 29). CONCLUSIONS: Many surveys of parental barriers to immunization failed to address a number of important themes identified in qualitative studies. To the extent this is true in other areas, ensuring that investigators have conducted an adequate number and variety of qualitative studies, and systematically reviewing those studies, will improve surveys' content validity.