Dataset Information

"Am I OK?" using human centered design to empower rheumatoid arthritis patients through patient reported outcomes.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the routine care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been shown to improve health outcomes, However, integration of PROs into the clinical visit is inconsistent. We aimed to develop a "dashboard" for RA patients to display relevant PRO measures for discussion during a routine RA clinical visit. METHODS:Patients (N?=?45) and providers (N?=?12) were recruited from rheumatology clinics at a university center and a safety net hospital. Using a human-centered design process involving patients, clinicians, designers, and health-IT experts, we performed interviews, clinic observations, and focus groups, which subsequently guided an iterative phase of prototype testing. RESULTS:RA patients and their providers shared the goals of assessing wellbeing and developing a personalized treatment plan. We found conflicting views of which data were most important for guiding decision-making and for answering the patient's overarching question of "Am I OK?" CONCLUSION:The final dashboard simplified the display of PRO data and correlated it longitudinally to the patient's medication regimen. It also included laboratory values relevant for RA care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:By presenting data graphically, the dashboard may provide a platform for patients and providers to communicate around PROs and shared goals.

SUBMITTER: Ragouzeos D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6421089 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Am I OK?" using human centered design to empower rheumatoid arthritis patients through patient reported outcomes.

Ragouzeos Dana D Gandrup Julie J Berrean Beth B Li Jing J Murphy Marie M Trupin Laura L Yazdany Jinoos J Schmajuk Gabriela G

Patient education and counseling 20181028 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the routine care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been shown to improve health outcomes, However, integration of PROs into the clinical visit is inconsistent. We aimed to develop a "dashboard" for RA patients to display relevant PRO measures for discussion during a routine RA clinical visit.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients (N = 45) and providers (N = 12) were recruited from rheumatology clinics at a university center and a safety net hospital. ...[more]

PMID: 30446358

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease that causes a considerable burden for the patient and society. It is not clear yet whether aiming for remission (REM) is worthwhile, especially when compared with low disease activity (LDA).MethodsIn 356 consecutive RA patients, we obtained data on physical function (health assessment questionnaire (HAQ)), health-related quality of life (HRQoL: Short Form 36 (SF36), Short Form 6 dimensions (SF-6D), Euro QoL 5D (EQ-5D)), work productivity (work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire (WPAI)), as well as estimation of direct and indirect costs. Cross-sectionally, data were compared in patients within different levels of disease activity according to the simplified disease activity index (SDAI; remission (REM ≤3.3); n = 87; low disease activity (LDA: 3.3 < SDAI ≤11); n = 103; moderate to high disease activity (MDA/HDA) >11 n = 119) by using analyses of variance (ANOVA). Longitudinal investigations assessed patients who changed from LDA to REM and vice versa.ResultsWe found differences in patients achieving REM compared with LDA for HAQ (0.39 ± 0.58 versus 0.72 ± 68), WPAI (percentage impairment while working 11.8% ± 18.7% versus 26.8% ± 23.9%; percentage of overall activity impairment, 10.8% ± 14.1% versus 29.0% ± 23.6%)), EQ-5D (0.89 ± 0.12 versus 0.78 ± 0.6) and SF-36 (physical component score (PCS): 46.0 ± 8.6 versus 38.3 ± 10.5; mental component score (MCS): 49.9 ± 11.1 versus 47.9 ± 12.3) (P < 0.01 for all, except for SF36 MCS). Regarding costs, we found significant differences of direct and indirect costs (P < 0.05) within different levels of disease activity, with higher costs in patients with higher states of disease activity. Longitudinal evaluations confirmed the main analyses.ConclusionPatients with REM show better function, HRQoL, and productivity, even when compared with another good state, such as LDA. Also from a cost perspective, REM appears superior to all other states.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsPROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined.ResultsIn 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values.ConclusionAmong MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone.Clinical trial registration numberSELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-efficacy, or patients' confidence in their ability to control disease and its consequences, was recently prioritised in EULAR recommendations for inflammatory arthritis self-management strategies. However, it remains unclear which factors influence self-efficacy in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsData were analysed from the 2-year RCT Care in early RA (CareRA), which studied remission-induction treatment regimens for early RA. Participants completed the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R), Utrecht Coping List (UCL), RAQoL and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Depending on time to first remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.6) and persistence of remission, treatment response was defined as persistent response, secondary failure, delayed response, late response or non-response. The association between ASES scores and clinical/psychosocial factors was explored with Spearman correlation and multivariate linear mixed models. Baseline predictors of week 104 ASES were identified with exploratory linear regression followed by multiple regression of significant predictors adjusted for DAS28-CRP, HAQ, treatment arm, treatment response, cumulative CRP/SJC28 and demographic/serologic confounders.ResultsAll 379 patients had a recent diagnosis of RA and were DMARD-naïve at study initiation. Most patients were women (69%) and RF/ACPA-positive (66%), and the mean (SD) age was 52 (13) years. For all tested outcome measures, better perceived health correlated with higher self-efficacy. While patient-reported factors (HAQ, SF-36, RAQoL, IPQ-R, pain, fatigue and patient's global assessment) showed moderate/strong correlations with ASES scores, correlations with physician-reported factors (physician's global assessment, SJC28), TJC28 and DAS28-CRP were weak. Only more favourable outcomes on patient-reported factors and DAS28-CRP were associated with higher ASES scores at each time point. An earlier, persistent treatment response predicted higher ASES scores at both weeks 52 and 104. Significant baseline predictors of week 104 ASES included HAQ; SF-36 mental component score, vitality, mental health and role emotional; IPQ-R illness coherence, treatment control, emotional representations and consequences; UCL Passive reacting; and the RAQoL.ConclusionsPatient-reported outcomes and treatment response were early determinants of long-term self-efficacy in an early RA trial. These results provide further relevance for the window of opportunity in an early treat-to-target strategy and could help to timely identify patients who might benefit from self-management interventions.Trial registrationEudraCT 2008-007225-39.

Dataset Information

"Am I OK?" using human centered design to empower rheumatoid arthritis patients through patient reported outcomes.

Publications

"Am I OK?" using human centered design to empower rheumatoid arthritis patients through patient reported outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets