"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.

Patients' perspectives on systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud's phenomenon in the feet: A qualitative study from the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To explore, from patients' perspectives, the symptoms and impact of Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) on the feet of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc-RP), and to identify which foot-related domains are important to patients. METHODS: Forty participants (34 women) with SSc-RP took part in one of six focus groups held in the United Kingdom or United States. Participants were purposively sampled to ensure diversity in disease type, duration, and ethnicity. The topic guide included questions on RP impact, self-management, and treatment expectations. Qualitative content analysis was employed to identify key concepts in the data relating to foot-specific symptoms and their impact. Themes were organized by corresponding domains of potential importance. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants (70 %) reported experiencing RP in their feet. Five themes were identified corresponding to domains of potential importance: temperature changes, pain, cramping and stiffness, numbness, and color changes. These issues negatively affected participants' lives, impairing walking, driving, and socializing, and causing issues with footwear and hosiery. CONCLUSIONS: This large qualitative study exploring the experiences of patients with SSc-RP in the feet identified several key domains of high importance to patients. SSc-RP is common in the feet, presents in several patterns, and impacts multiple aspects of patients' lives. These findings indicate where future foot-specific interventions for RP could be targeted. Findings from this study improve understanding of what domains are important to patients with SSc-RP affecting the feet and will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Validation of a new glucocorticoid-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire (the Steroid PRO).

OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids used in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic conditions can impact on health-related quality of life. An underpinning qualitative study developed a long-list of candidate items for a treatment-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure. The objective of this paper is to determine scale structure and psychometric properties of the Steroid PRO. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of adults from the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand, taking glucocorticoids for a rheumatic disease. Initial survey collected demographics, clinical information, 40 Steroid PRO candidate items and EuroQol-5 Dimensions- 5 levels (EQ-5D-5L). Follow-up, 3-5 days later, collected Steroid PRO candidate items and a condition-change ('transition') question. Analysis included Rasch measurement model, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and hypothesis testing for discriminative validity, convergence validity and test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Total responses 946: UK n=743 (79%); USA n=139 (15%); Australia/New Zealand n=64 (7%); mean age 57.6 (SD=13.6); 833 (88%) women. Participants with inflammatory arthritis n=197 (21%), connective tissue disease and/or vasculitis n=402 (42%), giant cell arteritis and/or polymyalgia rheumatica n=347 (37%). Twenty-five items were removed due to lack of fit to Rasch model. Of the remaining items, EFA suggested four subscales: Social impact (4 items); Impact on appearance (3 items); Psychological impact (5 items); Treatment concerns (3 items). Rasch modelling supported a four-subscale structure and total score, confirming construct validity and reliability. Hypothesis testing confirmed discriminant and convergence validity. Intraclass correlation coefficient (total score) was 0.809 demonstrating excellent (test-retest) reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The Steroid PRO is a 15-item, valid and reliable scale for measuring the impact of glucocorticoid therapy in people with rheumatic diseases.

Consensus of the definitions of the OMERACT glucocorticoid impact core domain set for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Glucocorticoid (GC) Impact Working Group has been working to develop a core domain set to measure the impact of GCs on patients living with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. The mandatory domains previously identified for inclusion in all clinical trials measuring the GC effects include infection, bone fragility, mood disturbance, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, and mortality. Before progressing to instrument selection, the Working Group sought to establish precise definitions of all mandatory domains within the core domain set. METHODS: OMERACT methodology was applied with the use of evidence and consensus-based decision making of all stakeholder groups (patient research partners, health care professionals, clinician researchers, industry members and methodologists) to develop detailed definitions for the broad domain, target domain and domain components, taking into consideration sources of variability that could affect measurement of the domain.  The working group synthesized prior qualitative studies, quantitative work, and results from Delphi rounds, to develop a rich definition of 'what' is to be measured. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, the OMERACT Working Group on GC Impact conducted virtual meetings to establish domain definitions. First, we mapped each domain onto an OMERACT Core Area. All domains were primarily represented within the Pathophysiological Manifestations Core Area, except from Fatigue which was primarily Life Impact and Weight which spanned both Core Areas. Sources of variability included cultural factors, age, gender, education level, socioeconomic status, personal experiences, emotional state, and language barriers. The domain definitions will form the foundation for instrument selection and the initial step of domain / concept match and content validity in the OMERACT pillar of 'truth' before moving on to feasibility and discrimination. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT GC Impact Working Group has developed and agreed upon detailed domain definitions for core domains. Future steps of the working group are to select instruments and develop the core outcome measurement set for clinical trials measuring the impact of GC on patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

Nurse-led care for people with early rheumatoid arthritis: Interview study with thematic analysis.

AIMS: To develop an understanding of what comprises nurse-led care in early rheumatoid arthritis from the perspective of rheumatology nurse specialists in England. DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews with rheumatology nurse specialists in England were conducted in Summer 2020. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Reporting follows the appropriate elements of consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research. RESULTS: Sixteen nurses were recruited and interviews lasted 30-60 min. Four themes with 14 subthemes were identified. A SPECIALIST SERVICE DELIVERED BY EXPERIENCED RHEUMATOLOGY NURSES: Specialist care is provided by experienced nurse specialists with a high degree of autonomy in the rheumatology multidisciplinary team context. ADDRESSING PATIENTS' COMPLEX CARE NEEDS: Care is evidence-based and aims to start treatment, keep in treatment, educate and support. Access to psychology expertise is needed. CARE WITH COMPASSION USING PERSON-CENTRED, HOLISTIC AND EMPATHETIC APPROACHES: Nurses create patient relationships and a positive therapeutic environment. Nurse-led telephone advice lines are essential for treatment adjustment, patient support and empowerment. CONTINUED EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SERVICE: Consultations are reviewed, and patients are asked for feedback. The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption, but changes streamlined procedures and improved documentation and communication. CONCLUSION: Nurse-led care in early rheumatoid arthritis is a specialist service delivered with compassion, addressing complex care needs and using person-centred approaches. This study identifies key aspects of care in early disease from the nurse perspective.

Developing a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A scoping review and report from the OMERACT 2022 foot and ankle special interest group session.

OBJECTIVES: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, yet high-quality evidence assessing the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders is lacking. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Foot and Ankle Working Group is developing a core outcome set for use in clinical trials and longitudinal observational studies in this area. METHODS: A scoping review was performed to identify outcome domains in the existing literature. Clinical trials and observational studies comparing pharmacological, conservative or surgical interventions involving adult participants with any foot or ankle disorder in the following rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) were eligible for inclusion: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), spondyloarthropathies, crystal arthropathies and connective tissue diseases. Outcome domains were categorised according to the OMERACT Filter 2.1. RESULTS: Outcome domains were extracted from 150 eligible studies. Most studies included participants with foot/ankle OA (63% of studies) or foot/ankle involvement in RA (29% of studies). Foot/ankle pain was the outcome domain most commonly measured (78% of studies), being the most frequently specified outcome domain across all RMDs. There was considerable heterogeneity in the other outcome domains measured, across core areas of manifestations (signs, symptoms, biomarkers), life impact, and societal/resource use. The group's progress to date, including findings from the scoping review, was presented and discussed during a virtual OMERACT Special Interest Group (SIG) in October 2022. During this meeting, feedback was sought amongst delegates regarding the scope of the core outcome set, and feedback was received on the next steps of the project, including focus group and Delphi methods. CONCLUSION: Findings from the scoping review and feedback from the SIG will contribute to the development of a core outcome set for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. The next steps are to determine which outcome domains are important to patients, followed by a Delphi exercise with key stakeholders to prioritise outcome domains.

Living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: A systematic review of qualitative studies to inform the work of the OMERACT Foot and Ankle Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine outcome domains of importance to patients living with foot and ankle disorders in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), by exploring the symptoms and impact of these disorders reported in existing qualitative studies. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to March 2022. Studies were included if they used qualitative interview or focus group methods, were published in English, and involved participants living with RMDs (inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, crystal arthropathies, connective tissue diseases, and musculoskeletal conditions in the absence of systemic disease) who had experienced foot and ankle problems. Quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative tool and confidence in the findings was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. All data from the results section of included studies were extracted, coded and synthesised to develop themes. RESULTS: Of 1,443 records screened, 34 studies were included, with a total of 503 participants. Studies included participants with rheumatoid arthritis (n = 18), osteoarthritis (n = 5), gout (n = 3), psoriatic arthritis (n = 1), lupus (n = 1), posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (n = 1), plantar heel pain (n = 1), Achilles tendonitis (n = 1), and a mixed population (n = 3), who live with foot and ankle disorders. Seven descriptive themes were generated from the thematic synthesis: pain, change in appearance, activity limitations, social isolation, work disruption, financial burden and emotional impact. Descriptive themes were inductively analysed further to construct analytical themes relating to potential outcome domains of importance to patients. Foot or ankle pain was the predominant symptom experienced by patients across all RMDs explored in this review. Based on grading of the evidence, we had moderate confidence that most of the review findings represented the experiences of patients with foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that foot and ankle disorders impact on multiple areas of patients' lives, and patients' experiences are similar regardless of the RMD. This study will inform the development of a core domain set for future foot and ankle research and are also useful for clinicians, helping to focus clinical appointments and measurement of outcomes within clinical practice.

Measuring the impact of steroid therapy on health-related quality of life in patients with rheumatic diseases: international development of a glucocorticoid treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure.

OBJECTIVES: Glucocorticoids (GCs) ('steroids') are used to treat rheumatic diseases but adverse effects are common. We aimed to explore the impact of GC therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), to inform the development of a treatment-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in clinical trials and practice. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients from the UK, USA and Australia, treated for a rheumatic condition with GCs in the last 2 years. Purposive sampling was used to select participants with a range of demographic and disease features. An initial conceptual framework informed interview prompts and cues. Interviews elicited GC-related physical and psychological symptoms and salient aspects of HRQoL in relation to GC therapy. Interview data were analysed inductively to develop initial individual themes and domains. Candidate questionnaire items were developed and refined. RESULTS: Sixty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted (UK n = 34, USA n = 10, Australia n = 16). The mean age was 58 years; 39/60 were female; and 18 rheumatic diseases were represented. Some 126 individual themes were identified and organized into six domains: physical symptoms; psychological symptoms; psychological impact of steroids; impact of steroids on participation; impact of steroids on relationships; and benefits of steroids. Candidate questionnaire items were tested and refined by piloting with patient research partners, iterative rounds of cognitive interviews and linguistic translatability assessment, informing a draft questionnaire. CONCLUSION: We describe an international qualitative study to develop candidate items for a treatment-specific PROM for patients with rheumatic diseases. A future survey will enable the validation of a final version of the PROM.

Developing an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT): core domain set study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure). METHODS: COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081.

Exploring perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform clinical trial design in rheumatology: A qualitative study and OMERACT collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial design requires value judgements and understanding patient preferences may help inform these judgements, for example when prioritizing treatment candidates, designing complex interventions, selecting appropriate outcomes, determining clinically important thresholds, or weighting composite outcomes. Preference elicitation methods are quantitative approaches that can estimate patients' preferences to quantify the absolute or relative importance of outcomes or other attributes relevant to the decision context. We aimed to explore stakeholder perceptions of using preference elicitation methods to inform judgements when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. METHODS: We conducted 1-on-1 semi-structured interviews with patients with rheumatic diseases and rheumatology clinicians/researchers, recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants were provided pre-interview materials, including a video and a document, to introduce the topic of preference elicitation methods and case examples of potential applications to clinical trials. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and were audio-recorded and transcribed. We used thematic analysis to analyze our data. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 patients and 9 clinicians/researchers, until data and inductive thematic saturation were achieved within each group. Themes were grouped into overall perceptions, barriers, and facilitators. Patients and clinicians/researchers generally agreed that preference elicitation studies can improve clinical trial design, but that many considerations are required around preference heterogeneity and feasibility. A key barrier identified was the additional resources and expertise required to measure and incorporate preferences effectively in trial design. Key facilitators included developing guidance on how to use preference elicitation to inform trial design, as well as the role of external decision-makers in developing such guidance, and the need to leverage the movement towards patient engagement in research to encourage including patient preferences when designing trials. CONCLUSION: Our findings allowed us to consider the potential applications of patient preferences in trial design according to stakeholders within rheumatology who are involved in the trial process. Future research should be conducted to develop comprehensive guidance on how to meaningfully include patient preferences when designing clinical trials in rheumatology. Doing so may have important downstream effects for shared decision-making, especially given the chronic nature of rheumatic diseases.

Improving benefit-harm assessment of glucocorticoid therapy incorporating the patient perspective: The OMERACT glucocorticoid core domain set.

OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to develop an Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) core domain set to capture the impact of glucocorticoids (GC), both positive and negative, on patients with Rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was used to guide core domain selection. Systematic literature reviews, qualitative studies and quantitative surveys were conducted by the OMERACT GC Impact working group to identify candidate domains for a core domain set. A summary of prior work and Delphi exercise were presented at the OMERACT 2020 virtual GC workshop. A proposed GC Impact core domain set derived from this work was presented for discussion in facilitated breakout groups. Participants voted on the proposed GC Impact core domain set. RESULTS: 113 people, including 23 patient research partners, participated in two virtual workshops conducted at different times on the same day. The proposed mandatory domains to be evaluated in clinical trials involving GCs were: infection, bone fragility, hypertension, diabetes, weight, fatigue, mood disturbance and death. In addition, collection of disease specific outcomes was included in the core domain set as "mandatory in specific circumstances". The proposed core domain set was endorsed by 100% (23/23) of the patient research partners and 92% (83/90) of the remaining participants, including clinicians, researchers and industry stakeholders. CONCLUSION: A GC Impact core domain set was endorsed at the OMERACT 2020 virtual workshop. The OMERACT GC Impact working group will now progress to identify, develop and validate measurement tools to best address these domains in clinical trials.

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.

The patient perspective of nurse-led care in early rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review of qualitative studies with thematic analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Management of rheumatoid arthritis has changed dramatically over the last decade and is characterised by early start of intensive treatment and tight monitoring of disease activity until remission. The role of nurse-led care at early stage of disease is not well understood. AIMS: To develop an understanding of rheumatology nurse-led care from the perspective of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: A systematic review of qualitative studies, reported in line with PRISMA checklist. In March 2019, the following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and OpenGrey. Studies were included if they: included adults with rheumatoid arthritis; were qualitative studies with data on patients' perspectives of nurse-led care; and published in peer-reviewed journals, in English, between 2010-2019. Due to few studies in early rheumatoid arthritis, inclusion was extended to adults with established rheumatoid arthritis. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment. Thematic synthesis was conducted according to the framework of Thomas and Harden (2008). RESULTS: The search identified 1034 records. After screening and assessing for eligibility, eight qualitative studies were included in the review (133 patients). Three themes were identified from the synthesis. Nurse-led care was seen to provide professional expertise in planning and delivery of care. A person-centred approach was used combined with good communication skills, thus creating a positive therapeutic environment. Nurse-led care was described as providing a sense of empowerment and psychological support. CONCLUSION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are supportive of nurse-led care. They value its professionalism and person-centred approach which provide a sense of security and confidence. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings outline ingredients of nurse-led care that are important to patients. These can inform nurses' professional development plans, service improvement and the competence framework for rheumatology nursing.

Evaluation of Oral Health Status and Oral Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontal disease (PD) are common chronic, immunoinflammatory, destructive, and progressive diseases; however, the correlations between those two are not yet widely discussed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the selected demographic and clinical parameters of RA patients and oral health status parameters, on the basis of self-assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred patients under treatment were included in the study. Questionnaires were completed by 164 out of 300 patients. RESULTS: A total of 100 females and 64 males took part in the study, with a mean age of 65 ± 11.1 years. In younger patients, the disease activity score (DAS28) was higher, and it was associated with pain or discomfort in the oral cavity and with difficulties in toothbrushing. Discomfort or pain in the oral cavity was to a significant extent associated with the poor gingival state, gingival bleeding, and difficulties in biting or chewing. CONCLUSIONS: In RA patients, difficulties in biting or chewing, discomfort or pain in oral cavity, feeling of the presence of movable teeth, and gingival bleeding are indications of periodontal infection. Maintaining awareness of oral health and RA is a key issue in the simultaneous management of proper oral care and RA due to the mutual influence of those two factors.

Rheumatoid arthritis patients' oral health and disease activity.

AIM: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontal diseases (PD) are common chronic, inflammatory, destructive and progressive diseases that may have similar pathophysiological mechanisms and risk factors. RA affects more than 1.5% of the world's population, with a higher percentage of females than males. PD is present in around 20% of the population and has multifactorial etiology. The purpose of this study is to describe patients' self-reported oral health and the association with RA disease activity. METHOD: Three hundred patients under treatment for RA from the Division of Rheumatology, Clinical Medicine, North Jutland Region Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark and were eligible for the study. Questionnaires were emailed to the patients and 164 completed answers were received. RESULTS: The mean age of the group of 164 patients (61% female) was 65 ± 11 years. The average value of Disease Activity Score of 28 joints was 2.31 ± 0.83. Only 12% of responders were active smokers. Patients estimated their status of their teeth and gingiva respectively as poor in 13% and 11% of cases, good, in 46% and 49%, and excellent, both as 40%. Spontaneous and/or provoked gingival bleeding were experienced by 15% and 49% of patients. Only 14% of patients declared feelings of loose or movable teeth and 10% declared difficulties in biting or chewing. CONCLUSIONS: The status of oral cavity reported by Danish patients indicates a significant proportion with symptoms of gingival/periodontal disease, which may negatively influence RA activity and disease management. Cooperation between rheumatologists and dentists is important in oral health management in periodontal inflammation.

Patients' experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. METHODS: Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. CONCLUSION: Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders.

Advancing Stiffness Measurement in Rheumatic Disease: Report from the Stiffness Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To improve measurement of stiffness in rheumatic disease. METHODS: Data presented included (1) 2 qualitative projects, (2) the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) stiffness patient-reported outcome measure (RAST), and (3) 3 items assessing stiffness severity, duration, and interference. RESULTS: Stiffness is multidimensional and includes aspects of stiffness experience such as duration, severity, and effect. Stiffness items showed construct validity in RA. Further efforts are required to develop an instrument that will be taken through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 for instrument selection. CONCLUSION: The research agenda for the group includes domain content voting for individual diseases, and development of stiffness item banks and disease-specific short forms.

The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process. METHODS: At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants. RESULTS: The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 "mandatory" trial domains: pain, function, patient global - shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 "important but optional" domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set. CONCLUSION: OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

Toward a Core Domain Set for Glucocorticoid Impact in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: The OMERACT 2018 Glucocorticoid Impact Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the effects of glucocorticoids (GC), which are of importance to patients. METHODS: The results of 2 literature reviews, a patient survey, and a qualitative study were presented. RESULTS: No validated instrument exists to evaluate GC effect on patients. Survey data revealed skin thinning/bruising, sleep disturbance, and weight gain as the most frequent adverse effects. The qualitative research yielded rich data covering rapid benefits and physical and emotional consequences of GC. CONCLUSION: It was agreed that a patient-reported outcome to measure GC effect was required and a research agenda was developed for this goal.