Patient Acceptance of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Rheumatology Care.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether patients with autoimmune disease would accept advanced practice providers (APPs) as an option to fill the growing shortage of rheumatologists. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to 500 patients or parents of children who reported having been diagnosed with qualifying autoimmune conditions and who had seen their primary rheumatology providers in the past 6 months. Respondents self-reported whether their primary providers were rheumatologists or APPs. Our analysis compared the attitude and experience of the patients whose primary rheumatology providers were APPs with those of patients whose primary providers were rheumatologists. RESULTS: Of respondents, 36.8% reported having APPs as primary rheumatology providers. Patients of APPs were significantly more likely to arrive at their provider's office in 15 minutes or less (P < 0.01) and to be able to schedule routine and urgent appointments sooner (P = 0.02 and 0.05, respectively). There were no significant differences in overall patient experience of care between provider types. Most patients rated their providers highly, but those who saw rheumatologists rated their providers significantly higher (P < 0.01). Patients of APPs were significantly more likely than patients of rheumatologists to prefer to see APPs over rheumatologists (P < 0.01) and to recommend APPs (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: APPs may improve access to care and, regardless of provider type, patients rated their overall experience of care similarly. Overall, patient attitudes toward APPs were positive regardless of provider type, although APP patients held more positive overall attitudes toward APPs than did rheumatologist patients.

Psychometric characteristics of the health care empowerment questionnaire in a sample of patients with arthritis and rheumatic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment can improve health-related outcomes and is important in chronic conditions, such as arthritis. This study aimed to validate the Health Care Empowerment Questionnaire (HCEQ), a patient-reported experience measure of empowerment, for use with patients with arthritis and other rheumatic diseases. METHODS: The HCEQ measures Patient Information Seeking (or Involvement in Decisions) and Healthcare Interaction Results (or Involvement in Interactions) and asks respondents to answer questions in two ways: whether they feel something happened and its importance to them. Face validity was assessed through qualitative data (n = 8, nominal group technique; n = 55, focus groups). Measure structure was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); internal consistency was also assessed (n = 9226). Test-retest reliability was assessed with sub-sample of participants (n = 182). RESULTS: We found adequate face validity of the HCEQ for patients with arthritis. The CFA indicated good fit to the data for the two-factor structure of the HCEQ (RMSEA = 0.075; CFI = 0.987; TLI = 0.978; SRMR = 0.026). Internal consistency was strong (α=0.94 for both subscales). Test-retest reliability was moderate for Patient Information Seeking (ICC=0.67) and good for Healthcare Interaction Results (ICC=0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The HCEQ, with modifications, demonstrated promising psychometric properties within this sample, laying the foundation for further assessment. This work supports the HCEQ as an appropriate instrument for examining experiences with and perceived importance of empowerment in individuals with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients contributed to the assessment of face validity. As a measure of patient empowerment, the HCEQ's use can enable further participation of patients in health care.

Stakeholder Development of an Online Program to Track Arthritis-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes Longitudinally: Live Yes! INSIGHTS.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings but may not provide benefits to patients outside of health encounters. The Arthritis Foundation's Live Yes! Network provides an opportunity for PROM use by individuals and the network that assists individuals with managing their arthritis between encounters. Our objective was to develop a patient-reported outcomes platform for the network, Live Yes! INSIGHTS, using mixed methods and extensive stakeholder input. METHODS: A mixed methods longitudinal transformation design was used, starting with semistructured interviews to specify the main priorities of the program, literature review to identify potential PROMs, modified Delphi and nominal group technique to select final PROMs, and focus groups to guide program implementation, messaging, and use of results. We gathered input from 93 participants, including from individuals living with arthritis (74% of participants), caregivers, providers, researchers, and measurement experts. RESULTS: Our mixed methods study resulted in the selection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29, PROMIS Emotional Support Short Form v2.0, and the Health Care Empowerment Questionnaire, to be deployed through a Qualtrics platform. Triangulation of data resulted in identification of potential risks and benefits, including confidentiality, ability to personally track and share data, and an opportunity to contribute to research. CONCLUSION: An accessible measurement system backed by psychometrically strong PROMs, created with robust stakeholder engagement, and linked to a national patient network sets the stage for individuals with arthritis to better monitor and improve health outcomes both outside and inside health care settings and for the network to customize programming to meet needs.

Information needs across the family planning continuum: A survey of women with chronic autoimmune inflammatory conditions.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the information needs of women with chronic autoimmune inflammatory conditions across the pregnancy continuum. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey with women about information needs related to family planning. Eligible participants were female, aged 18-44, had a diagnosis of a chronic inflammatory condition, and were at one of three pregnancy stages (planning, currently pregnant, or postpartum). RESULTS: The survey yielded 209 responses. Respondents had high levels of information needs and were active information seekers. Many respondents reported difficulty finding the information they need. Over half (56.9%) reported receiving conflicting information from different doctors, and a majority of those respondents reported doing their own research. Respondents expressed the greatest interest in resources that facilitated connections to other women and their experiences (87.4%). Pregnancy stage was significantly associated with information needs and preferences; respondents in the planning stage of pregnancy had higher information needs, reported more dissatisfaction with communication with doctors, and were less connected to pregnancy resources. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Both providers and health/advocacy organizations have a role in improving information around this topic, such as developing and disseminating resources tailored to pregnancy status and supporting patient-centered communication around family planning.

Evidence for Updating the Core Domain Set of Outcome Measures for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Report from a Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2016.

OBJECTIVE: The current Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) Core Set was developed in 1997 to identify the outcome measures to be used in JIA clinical trials using statistical and consensus-based techniques, but without patient involvement. The importance of patient/parent input into the research process has increasingly been recognized over the years. An Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) JIA Core Set Working Group was formed to determine whether the outcome domains of the current core set are relevant to those involved or whether the core set domains should be revised. METHODS: Twenty-four people from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, including patient partners, formed the working group. Guided by the OMERACT Filter 2.0 process, we performed (1) a systematic literature review of outcome domains, (2) a Web-based survey (142 patients, 343 parents), (3) an idea-generation study (120 parents), (4) 4 online discussion boards (24 patients, 20 parents), and (5) a Special Interest Group (SIG) activity at the OMERACT 13 (2016) meeting. RESULTS: A MEDLINE search of outcome domains used in studies of JIA yielded 5956 citations, of which 729 citations underwent full-text review, and identified additional domains to those included in the current JIA Core Set. Qualitative studies on the effect of JIA identified multiple additional domains, including pain and participation. Twenty-one participants in the SIG achieved consensus on the need to revise the entire JIA Core Set. CONCLUSION: The results of qualitative studies and literature review support the need to expand the JIA Core Set, considering, among other things, additional patient/parent-centered outcomes, clinical data, and imaging data.