Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Properties of the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR) for Use in Arabic-Speaking Patients in Saudi Arabia.

Background/Aim: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a complex and debilitating condition that significantly impacts patients' daily lives. The continuous assessment of the impact and severity of FM is essential to manage the condition effectively. Assessment tools in Arabic are lacking for use in Saudi Arabia, which might lead to ineffective management. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt and validate the Arabic version of the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR). Methods: Following translation guidelines, 2 Arabic translators and 2 English-certified translators performed forward and backward translations of the FIQR. In a cross-sectional study design, the questionnaire was piloted with 5 participants and then subjected to cognitive interviews and psychometric analysis. Participants were FM patients recruited from a University Hospital in Riyadh and FM support groups in Saudi Arabia. The internal consistency, and reliability using the Cronbach α and interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 2-week test-retest, and criterion validity were evaluated. Results: The results included a total of 42 participants with FM. Six minor modifications were made during the stepwise translation of the questionnaire. The Arabic version of the FIQR had good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, with a Cronbach α of 0.855 for the physical functioning domain, 0.663 for overall well-being, 0.803 for symptoms, and 0.895 for the total FIQR, and the Pearson correlation coefficient of the ICC for physical functioning was 0.769 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.541-0.884) for the overall well-being domain, 0.555 (95% CI, 0.129-0.772) for the symptoms domain, and 0.720 (95% CI, 0.370-0.868) and 0.794 (95% CI, 0.579-0.899) for the total FIQR score (p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: The Arabic version of the FIQR is a valid, reliable, and practical tool for assessing the impact of FM on Arabic-speaking patients and potentially contributing to the improvement of FM outcomes.

Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST): Arabic Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation.

Background: Fibromyalgia (FM), a complex neurological disorder, has multiple consequences for the patient. To diagnose patients, healthcare practitioners use multiple diagnostic questionnaires. However, Arabic translated or validated tools are lacking. This study aimed to translate and validate the Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) into the Arabic language. Methods: Forward and backward translations of the FiRST were conducted by two Arabic translators and two English-certified translators. The survey was piloted (n = 5) and subjected to cognitive interviews and psychometric analysis. Patients were recruited from a university hospital in Riyadh and an FM support group in Saudi Arabia. The internal consistency, factor analysis, and test-retest correlations were evaluated. Results: This study included 46 patients. The stepwise translation process resulted in minor edits related to the use of synonyms to the survey items. The translated survey had a good internal consistency and test-retest correlation, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.7 and Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.79 (p-value < 0.001), respectively. The survey was factorable into two themes: generalized symptoms and more specific sensations. Conclusions: The Arabic FiRST is a simple, valid, and reliable tool to diagnose patients with FM in different settings.

Knowledge and Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Among Pharmacy and Clinical Nutrition Students at King Saud University.

Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) in healthcare specialties is important to optimize patient outcomes and shape professional image toward teamwork and collaboration among healthcare professionals. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of IPE on pharmacy and clinical nutrition students' knowledge in food-drug interactions and readiness for interprofessional learning. Methods: This pre-post study was conducted at King Saud University between February and March 2020. We held an interprofessional workshop for pharmacy and clinical nutrition students. After we introduced the faculty members who would deliver the food-drug interactions session, the students took a seven-question quiz (total score = 7) to assess their knowledge about the basic concept of food-drug interactions before the session. After that, a 45-minute lecture was provided by a clinical pharmacy faculty member. Students from both disciplines worked on three clinical scenarios. After completing the assigned scenarios, the students retook the quiz to assess their knowledge after the workshop. In addition, student readiness was assessed using the 19-item Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS). Results: A total of 48 students were included in this study. Overall, students' mean scores in both colleges significantly increased after the workshop (p < 0.01). The mean RIPLS total scores (SD) for pharmacy students and clinical nutrition students were 80.6 (7.48) and 81.26 (6.96), respectively, out of a maximum possible score of 95. These scores indicated positive attitudes toward interprofessional learning in both groups. Conclusion: Pharmacy and clinical nutrition students' knowledge regarding food-drug interaction improved after implementing the IPE session. Students also reported higher scores for interprofessional learning. This indicates their willingness to participate in future interprofessional learning activities. Roles and responsibilities domain scores were slightly lower among both groups. Simulation-based activities including profession role exchange can be added to traditional IPE sessions to improve this domain.

Prevalence of adverse reactions to intravenously administered originator biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A 5-year retrospective study.

Background: Few Saudi studies have examined adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving intravenous (IV) originator biologics. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, types, and predictors of ADRs following long-term IV originator biologic use in patients with RA. Patients and methods: This retrospective, single-center study included adult patients with RA who received IV originator biologics between 2015 and 2020. Medical records were reviewed and data regarding ADRs were collected and evaluated for causality using the Naranjo scale. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the odds for and factors associated with developing ADRs for each biologic. Results: A total of 129 patients (87.6% women) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 54 (13) years were included in this study. A total of 1963 doses of tocilizumab (38.76%), rituximab (38.76%), abatacept (13.95%), and infliximab (8.53%), were administered during the study period. ADRs with a Naranjo score ≥ 1 were experienced by 103 (78%) patients, with an average of 2.2 events per patient. Infection (26.6%) and skin and mucous membrane disorders (14.18%) were the most commonly reported ADRs. Abatacept was associated with a significantly higher risk of multiple ADRs than the other biologics (adjusted odds ratio: 3.145, 95% confidence interval 1.004-9.854, p = 0.049). Conclusion: There was a high prevalence of ADRs among patients with RA receiving biologics. Abatacept was associated with a greater risk of multiple ADRs than other biologics. Infection was the most common ADR. Future multicenter longitudinal studies are warranted.

The Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ): Translation and Cognitive Debriefing of the Arabic Version.

The aim of this study was to translate the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ) and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire (iMCQ) from English into Arabic and perform cognitive debriefing in a Saudi Arabian setting. We conducted the translation according to guidelines, including two independent forward translations and a backward translation. Cognitive debriefing was carried out in two stages. First, the pre-final translated versions of the two questionnaires were tested on a group of respondents (n = 5) using face-to-face or telephone interviews. The participants completed a copy of the questionnaires, identified items or questions that were confusing or misunderstood, and then answered a series of open-ended questions about their understanding of each instruction, question and response option. Second, another group of participants (n = 17) completed the questionnaire and circled any word that was confusing or difficult to understand and provided comments on the questionnaires. The Arabic translation and linguistic validation were realized without any major difficulties. The few changes made after cognitive debriefing generally related to changing one word to a more appropriate Arabic word. The final Arabic translation needs to be validated for psychometric properties such as validity and reliability before being recommended for use in future research.

Barriers and facilitators to conducting economic evaluation studies of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries: a survey of researchers.

BACKGROUND: The number of published economic evaluations of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries is notably scarce. Limited local evidence could have a major impact on the implementation of economic evaluation recommendations in the decision-making process in GCC countries. Little is known about the factors affecting researchers who seek to conduct economic evaluations. Therefore, we aimed to assess researcher barriers and facilitators in conducting such studies of GCC countries. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of health economic researchers working in GCC countries was conducted online between January and February 2020. The survey instrument collected researchers' perceived barriers and facilitators and demographic information. For barriers, respondents rated their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". For facilitators, respondents rated the importance of each facilitator on a six-point scale ranging from "extremely important" to "not very important". Then, participants were asked to select the three most important barriers and facilitators from the lists. The data collected were examined using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-one researchers completed the survey (37% response rate). The majority of participants (more than 80%) agreed that lack of quality of effectiveness data and restricted access to unit cost data are the main barriers to conducting economic research. Availability of relevant local data was reported as an important facilitator, followed by collaboration between health economic researchers, policy-makers and other stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provide an exploratory view of the issues faced by health economics researchers in GCC countries. Recommendations to GCC countries based on international experiences, such as to use real-world data in economic evaluation research, were provided.

Prevalence of Fibromyalgia in Pharmacy Professionals and Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of fibromyalgia (FM) in pharmacy students and professionals is unknown. This study identifies the prevalence of FM in pharmacy students and professionals using three screening tools and factors associated with its development. Furthermore, this study assesses the level of agreement between the tools and the magnitude of the participants' responses to each item in the screening tools. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted on members of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society using an online questionnaire. The participants were asked to fill three questionnaires: the London Fibromyalgia Epidemiology Study Screening Questionnaire (LFESSQ), Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) and Fibromyalgia Survey Questionnaire (FSQ). Demographic data and factors affecting FM in pharmacy students and professionals were collected and analysed. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three participants accessed the survey: most of them were Saudi (93.5%) and females (78.8%) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 29 (8) years. Furthermore, 52% of the participants had generalised body pain. The prevalence of FM using FiRST, LFESSQ Pain, LFESSQ with fatigue criteria and FSQ was 27.1%, 34.9%, 50.9% and 68.4%, respectively. Fleiss' kappa coefficient revealed fair agreement among all three screening tools (kappa = 0.350; p < 0.001). After adjusting for significant variables, the resulting adjusted odds ratio of developing FM was 4.86 in people working for 41-45 h weekly (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-17.84; p = 0.017), 5.16 in people who frequently wake up during sleep (95% CI, 1.85-14.40; p = 0.002) and 12.99 in people with sleep apnea or other sleeping disorders (95% CI, 2.07-81.68; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: FM was prevalent among pharmacy students and professionals and was much more than data reported on the general population or other healthcare workers. Traditional factors along with higher working hours were identified as significant variables.

A Systematic Review of Sources of Outcomes and Cost Data Utilized in Economic Evaluation Research Conducted in the Gulf Cooperation Council.

BACKGROUND: Transparency and clarity in reporting of methods used to identify, measure, and value outcomes and resources in published economic evaluations is crucial. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this review were to identify and assess the quality of published economic evaluation studies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, with a specific focus on methods used to identify, measure, and value cost and outcomes data. METHODS: An electronic search of publications from 2009 to October 2019 was performed in three clinical (Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE) and one economic (NHS EED) databases. Full economic evaluations undertaken in GCC countries from any perspective were included. Reference lists of three reviews on the same topic and area were also searched for further eligible articles. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used for methodological quality assessment. Data on type and source of cost and outcomes data were collected. RESULTS: Out of 1857 studies identified, 14 relevant studies were eligible and included. Eleven studies were based in Saudi Arabia, and the remaining studies were published in the United Arab of Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman. Majority of the evaluations were based on the Markov modelling (n=8). None of the studies fully fulfilled the CHEERS quality criteria. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was the main outcome (n=10). The EQ-5D was valued using the UK value set tariff (n=6). Published literature was the source of outcomes data in seven studies. Hospital-based data were used as a source of healthcare resource use data in four studies, whereas hospital-based costs (n = 7) combined with other sources such as local/national data were the sources of unit cost data in the majority of the studies. CONCLUSION: Rigorous economic evaluations are lacking in the region leading to inaccurate information being given to decision-makers.

Cost-effectiveness of pain management services for chronic low back pain: a systematic review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent condition that has substantial impact on patients, the healthcare system and society. Pain management services (PMS), which aim to address the complex nature of back pain, are recommended in clinical practice guidelines to manage CLBP. Although the effectiveness of such services has been widely investigated in relation to CLBP, the quality of evidence underpinning the use of these services remains moderate. Therefore the aim is to summarize and critically appraise the current evidence for the cost effectiveness of pain management services for managing chronic back pain. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO from their inception to February 2019. Full economic evaluations undertaken from any perspective conducted alongside randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or based on decision analysis models were included. Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) risk assessment and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist were used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. RESULTS: Five studies fulfilled eligibility criteria. The interventions varied significantly between studies in terms of the number and types of treatment modalities, intensity and the duration of the program. Interventions were compared with either standard care, which varied according to the country and the setting; or to surgical interventions. Three studies showed that pain management services are cost effective, while two studies showed that these services are not cost effective. In this review, three out of five studies had a high risk of bias based on the design of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, there were limitations in the statistical and sensitivity analyses in the economic evaluations. Therefore, the results from these studies need to be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION: Pain management services may be cost effective for the management of low back pain. However, this systematic review highlights the variability of evidence supporting pain management services for patients with back pain. This is due to the quality of the published studies and the variability of the setting, interventions, comparators and outcomes.