Shared Decision-Making During Virtual Care Regarding Rheumatologic and Chronic Conditions: Qualitative Study of Benefits, Pitfalls, and Optimization.

OBJECTIVE: Virtual care (VC) is an accepted modality of care delivery, and shared decision-making (SDM) benefits patients with rheumatologic and chronic conditions (RCCs). Unfortunately, research suggests reduced quality of SDM during VC. This study explores the benefits and shortcomings of SDM regarding RCCs during VC with suggestions for optimally using VC during SDM. METHODS: Following Stiggelbout's framework for SDM, we conducted focus groups of patients with RCCs and providers to understand their experiences with SDM during VC, probing for facilitating and challenging factors. We conducted content analysis of the transcripts, defining themes, and inductively reasoned to identify relationships among themes. We summarized the facilitators, barriers, and opportunities for improving SDM during VC that participants proposed. RESULTS: Virtual SDM shares several similarities with in-person practice, as both draw upon trusting patient-provider relationships, following the same general steps, and relying on effective communication. VC presents solutions for known barriers to in-person SDM, expanding time for making decisions and access to care. Technology and virtual health systems introduce new barriers to SDM, and participants list opportunities for overcoming these concerns. CONCLUSION: VC is a tool that can enhance and even support superior SDM compared with in-person visits when implemented successfully, a condition requiring the development of nuanced skills to correctly identify when and how to best use VC for SDM as well as technology and health care structures that integrate SDM into VC. Therefore, patients, providers, insurance carriers, and policy makers all contribute to the success of SDM among RCCs during VC.

Patient outcomes in longitudinal observational studies (POLOS) of rheumatoid arthritis: Determining the OMERACT core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: To define and select rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-specific core domain set for Longitudinal Observational Studies (LOS) within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) framework. METHODS: A three-round online Delphi exercise, including patient research partners (PRPs) and other community partners in healthcare, was conducted. Domains scored 7-9 (i.e., critically important to include) by ≥ 70 % of participants in both groups were included. Items were consolidated in a subsequent dedicated meeting. RESULTS: Nineteen domains scored ≥ 70 % consensus in both groups. The focus group refined these into a list of twelve domains. CONCLUSION: The achieved consensus will inform the next steps of developing the core domain set for LOS in RA.

Patient perspectives on long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. A qualitative study from the OMERACT patient outcomes in longitudinal studies working group.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-centered domains with long-term relevance to people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual cognitive interviews of patients with RA with at least five years of disease duration, sampled from five different countries (United States, Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Argentina). Participants were encouraged to discuss their long-term concerns regarding RA. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis within a constructivist/interpretivist theoretical framework. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants were interviewed, 24 were women. Six main themes, representing important aspects of the daily life of people with RA were generated: (i) Living with symptoms and functional limitations, (ii) Lack of participation, (iii) Partner and family issues, (iv) Risk of damage to vital organs, (v) Coping strategies, and (vi) Healthcare concerns, primarily expressed by participants from non-European countries lacking universal healthcare coverage. In addition, participants discussed the importance of contextual factors and how they impact long-term outcomes. These included attitudes towards disease, social support, or financial burdens. CONCLUSIONS: We identified six domains of importance to people with RA that are seldom measured in longitudinal registries and should be considered in patient-centered longitudinal studies.

Addressing Competency in Rheumatology Telehealth Care Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Telehealth is an essential facet of care delivery for patients with rheumatic diseases. The Association of American Medical College's (AAMC) telehealth competencies (TCs) define the skills required for delivering general telehealth care across the range of clinician experience. In this study, the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) TCs working group aimed to adapt the AAMC TCs to rheumatology, outlining the skills acquisition unique to rheumatology with a focus on knowledge, skills, and behaviors expected of recent rheumatology fellowship graduates. METHODS: Through a collaborative process, the working group adapted the AAMC TCs to the training structure and practice of rheumatology. The rheumatology TCs underwent peer review among recipients of the Clinician Scholar Educator Award and attendees at the ACR 2021 Convergence conference. RESULTS: The rheumatology TCs define 24 essential skills required for synchronous telehealth care of patients with rheumatic diseases. The working group adapted the AAMC's 20 TCs organized within 6 domains, added 2 skills to the AAMC's domains of patient safety and appropriate use, and data collection and assessment, and created a novel domain of systems-based requirements with 2 competencies. The rheumatology TCs define expected skill levels for recent rheumatology fellowship graduates and experienced rheumatology clinicians. CONCLUSION: The rheumatology TCs represent the first adaptation of the AAMC TCs to subspecialty care, expanding the scope to include rheumatology fellowship graduates and additional domains of rheumatology practice. These competencies can guide curricular innovations and measurements of proficiency in telehealth care delivery among rheumatology trainees and experienced clinicians, enhancing the care provided to patients with rheumatic diseases.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of social networking on chronic disease management in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Social networking has been shown to improve health outcomes in certain patient populations. While patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increasingly use social networking to communicate with peers, the effects of these interactions are largely unknown. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, we compared RA patients who participated in a social networking group moderated by peer leaders and who had access to a static website offering RA materials with a control group, who only had access to the website. The primary outcomes were patients' RA knowledge, self-efficacy and empowerment. Secondary outcomes included participation in desired health behaviors, and satisfaction with peer support, among others. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3 and 6 months. Participants who never signed in were excluded from the primary analysis. RESULTS: 105 participants were randomized to each group. Mean age was 52 (±12.4) and 92.4% were females. Knowledge scores improved in both groups, but only in the control group the differences observed at 3 and 6 months were significant (p≤0.02). Self-efficacy scores also improved in both groups, but only the differences observed at 6 months in the Facebook group were significant (p=0.02). When comparing groups, at 3 months the knowledge improvements observed in the control group were greater compared with those observed in the Facebook group (mean difference 0.4 versus 0.1; respectively, p=0.03). No other differences were observed in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups, except in peer support satisfaction. The Facebook® group reported greater peer support satisfaction in 3 out 5 subscales compared with the control group (p≤0.04). CONCLUSION: Peer support satisfaction was higher in participants using an online social network, but this was not translated into greater disease knowledge or empowerment.

Development of a patient-centered core domain set for prospective observational longitudinal outcome studies in rheumatoid arthritis: an OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-centered core domains for prospective longitudinal observational studies (LOS) in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Our working group held a virtual meeting in November 2020 to review data from a literature review and patient qualitative interviews, and to discuss strategies to move forward on domain identification and selection using the OMERACT 2.1 domain selection process. RESULTS: Important candidate domains and subdomains were identified including in the areas of life impact. Consensus was reached on moving forward with a Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: The meeting provided future directions to identify and select a core set of domains for use in LOS.

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.

Interactions and perceptions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis participating in an online support group.

OBJECTIVE: Peer support is important for psychosocial well-being in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective was to assess the interactions, engagement, and perceptions of participants in an online support group for patients with RA. METHODS: Participants were 18 years or older, diagnosed with RA within 10 years, and residing in the USA or Canada. All participated in a closed Facebook online support group. Membership was by invitation only, and discussions were visible only to members, moderators, and two research staff. Each week, participants discussed a topic posted by a moderator. They also shared other disease-relevant information beside the topics posted. We assessed participants' engagement and qualitatively analyzed the content of their postings in the first 5 weeks of participation. RESULTS: The group had 90 participants: 94% were female and 83% white. Median age was 54 (24-84) years. Mean number of contributors per week was 50 (range, 42-62); 10% of participants never contributed to the discussions. Participation in discussions declined over time. Over three-quarters of participant posting were about information sharing. Participants shared information on disease experiences, medications, social lives (including pictures of themselves, families, and pets), online resources on RA, frustrations, messages of encouragement, and satirical depictions of their disease experience. Many expressed gratitude for the social support provided. CONCLUSION: Participants were generally enthusiastic and shared disease-related information and personal experiences. Social media groups may provide alternative means of providing education and peer support often lacking in traditional models of care.Key Points• The study examines how patients with rheumatoid arthritis engage in an online support group and the nature of their interactions.• This study reveals that social media platforms could provide viable options or complements to the traditional face-to-face small group patient support system.• It may be necessary to pay special attention to how to ensure a sustained participant interest in online social support group among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

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.