Display options
Cite
Jagpal A, O'Beirne R, Morris MS, et al. Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?. BMC Rheumatol. 2019;3:36doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2.
Jagpal, A., O'Beirne, R., Morris, M. S., Johnson, B., Willig, J., Yun, H., Cherrington, A. L., Fraenkel, L., Curtis, J. R., Safford, M. M., & Navarro-Millán, I. (2019). Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?. BMC rheumatology, 336. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2
Jagpal, Aprajita, et al. "Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?." BMC rheumatology vol. 3 (2019): 36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2
Jagpal A, O'Beirne R, Morris MS, Johnson B, Willig J, Yun H, Cherrington AL, Fraenkel L, Curtis JR, Safford MM, Navarro-Millán I. Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?. BMC Rheumatol. 2019 Sep 05;3:36. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2. eCollection 2019. PMID: 31517249; PMCID: PMC6727422.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Rheumatol. 2019 Sep 05;3:36. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2. eCollection 2019.

Which patient reported outcome domains are important to the rheumatologists while assessing patients with rheumatoid arthritis?.

BMC rheumatology

Aprajita Jagpal, Ronan O'Beirne, Melanie S Morris, Bernadette Johnson, James Willig, Huifeng Yun, Andrea L Cherrington, Liana Fraenkel, Jeffrey R Curtis, Monika M Safford, Iris Navarro-Millán

Affiliations

  1. 1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.
  2. 2Yale University, New Haven, CT USA.
  3. 3Division of General Internal Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, 420 E 70th St., LH-363, New York, NY 10021 USA.
  4. 4Division of Rheumatology, Hospital for Special Surgery, 420 E 70th St., LH-363, New York, NY 10021 USA.

PMID: 31517249 PMCID: PMC6727422 DOI: 10.1186/s41927-019-0087-2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aid in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management, but it is not well understood which measures would be most relevant to the rheumatologists for making treatment decisions.

METHODS: We recruited rheumatologists nationally to participate in moderated structured group teleconference discussions using the nominal group technique. Participants in each group generated lists of the elements from patient's history and signs that they use to make treatment recommendations for RA. Each participant then selected the three most important elements from the generated list. The results of each group were then combined and summarized.

RESULTS: Twenty-five rheumatologists participated in 4 groups (group size ranged from 4 to 8) and 150 available ranking votes across all groups. The statements generated across the 4 groups were categorized into 13 topics (including symptoms, physical function, comorbidities, social aspects, physical findings, response to treatment, treatment adherence, pain management, side effects, tests, access to care, contraception, and organ involvement), 10 of which received ranking votes. Symptoms received the highest ranking (46% of votes), followed by physical function (16%), and physical findings (13%). Among the unranked topics, social aspects had the highest number of statements (8 statements).

CONCLUSION: Rheumatologists highly valued patient-reported RA symptoms and physical function to inform their treatment decisions, even above objective data such as physical findings and test results. These results can guide the selection of validated PRO measures to assess these domains to inform the clinical care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Keywords: Patient reported outcomes; Physician perspective; Rheumatoid arthritis; Shared decision

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Pharmacoeconomics. 1993 Nov;4(5):353-65 - PubMed
  2. Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Oct;42(10):2220-30 - PubMed
  3. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 Jan;44(1):105-10 - PubMed
  4. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 Feb;35(2):156-62 - PubMed
  5. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Dec;22(12):1648-55 - PubMed
  6. J Rheumatol. 1991 Aug;18(8):1269-70 - PubMed
  7. J Rheumatol. 2011 Aug;38(8):1699-701 - PubMed
  8. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012 Apr;18(2):188-94 - PubMed
  9. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 Oct;52(10):1809-17 - PubMed
  10. Scand J Rheumatol. 2014;43(4):291-5 - PubMed
  11. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Jan 20;17:11 - PubMed
  12. Clin Rheumatol. 2015 Dec;34(12):2029-39 - PubMed
  13. J Rheumatol. 2015 Sep;42(9):1616-23 - PubMed
  14. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;68(1):1-26 - PubMed
  15. Rheumatol Int. 2016 May;36(5):685-95 - PubMed
  16. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2016 May;42(2):347-62 - PubMed
  17. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 May 21;18(1):114 - PubMed
  18. RMD Open. 2016 May 26;2(1):e000225 - PubMed
  19. Clin Ther. 2016 Jul;38(7):1759-1772.e3 - PubMed
  20. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):960-977 - PubMed
  21. J Rheumatol. 2018 Jan;45(1):40-44 - PubMed
  22. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2017 Dec;31(5-6):559-564 - PubMed
  23. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Dec 6;15(1):239 - PubMed
  24. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Jan;71(1):80-87 - PubMed
  25. J Rheumatol. 2019 Feb 15;: - PubMed
  26. Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Feb;23(2):137-45 - PubMed
  27. BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80 - PubMed
  28. Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):795-8 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support