Understanding how patients (vs physicians) approach the decision to escalate treatment: a proposed conceptual model.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a qualitative study to better understand how patients with RA approach risk-benefit trade-offs inherent in the choice of remaining with their current treatment vs escalating care. METHODS: We used a think-aloud protocol to examine how patients with RA approach risk-benefit trade-offs inherent in the choice of remaining with their current treatment vs adding a biologic. The data emerging from the protocols were used to develop a conceptual model describing how patients approach the decision to escalate care. RESULTS: Participants who were strongly impacted by their disease were not open to considering alternative options. For some patients, being highly impacted by their disease results in a strong preference to escalate care. For others, the same level of distress is reason to unconditionally refuse additional medications. In contrast, those who were moderately impacted were more open to consider treatment options. Among these participants, however, subjects' risk-benefit trade-offs were consistently modified by factors unrelated to medication, including sociodemographic characteristics, role responsibilities and the quality of the patient-physician relationship. CONCLUSION: The conceptual model indicates that patients approach the decision to escalate care differently from physicians. In order to improve care in RA, it is important to recognize that many patients with moderate to high disease activity are not open to alternative treatments, which is a prerequisite to engaging in decision making. Routine clinical encounters should enable health care providers to identify these patients in order to tailor education prior to recommending treatment escalation.

Subjective numeracy and preference to stay with the status quo.

BACKGROUND: Preference for the status quo, or clinical inertia, is a barrier to implementing treat-to-target protocols in patients with chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objectives of this study were to examine the influence of subjective numeracy on RA-patient preference for the status quo and to determine whether age modifies this relationship. METHODS: RA patients participated in a single face-to-face interview. Numeracy was measured using the Subjective Numeracy Scale. Treatment preference was measured using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. RESULTS: Of 205 eligible subjects, 156 agreed to participate. Higher subjective numeracy was associated with lower preference for the status quo in a regression model including race, employment, and use of biologics (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.71 [0.52-0.95], P = 0.02). Higher subjective numeracy was protective against status quo preferences among subjects younger than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 0.64 (0.43-0.94), P = 0.02) but not among older subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective numeracy is independently associated with younger, but not older, RA patients' preferences for the status quo. Our results add to the literature demonstrating age and numeracy differences in treatment preferences and medical decision-making processes.

High disease activity may not be sufficient to escalate care.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment regimens are not adjusted in response to active disease as frequently as indicated. The objective of this study was to examine how disease activity and patients' illness beliefs combine to predict future treatment changes in patients who are currently under the care of a rheumatologist. METHODS: We interviewed RA patients at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. We examined the association of disease activity (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 4) and 5 specific illness beliefs (consequences, treatment control, symptom burden, concern, and emotional impact) with future escalation of treatment using logistic regression. Analyses were adjusted for age, current biologic agent use, and disease duration. Disease activity and illness beliefs were dichotomized at the median to create 4 dummy variables (e.g., low disease activity + high illness belief) in order to examine the combined impact of disease activity and illness beliefs on escalation. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of the participants (n = 41 of 142) had an escalation of treatment during the followup period. When examined separately, disease activity and 4 of the illness beliefs (consequences, symptom burden, concern, and emotional impact) were associated with future escalation. High disease activity was predictive of future escalation only when combined with high levels of consequences, concern, and emotional impact. The combinations of high disease activity and high consequences, concern, and emotional impact were much stronger predictors of future escalation than either factor in isolation. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that patients' illness beliefs are an important determinant of treatment decisions, which are not fully captured by disease activity measures alone.