Severely compromised quality of life in women and those of lower socioeconomic status waiting for joint replacement surgery

Objective
To determine health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological distress, physical function, and self efficacy in persons waiting for lower-limb joint replacement surgery.

Methods
A total of 214 patients on a waiting list for unilateral primary total knee or hip replacement at a large Australian public teaching hospital completed questionnaires after entry to the list. HRQOL and psychological distress were compared with available population norms.

Results
Average HRQOL was extremely poor (mean ± SD 0.39 ± 0.24) and much lower (>2 SD) than the population norm. Near death-equivalent HRQOL or worse than death-equivalent HRQOL were reported by 15% of participants. High or very high psychological distress was up to 5 times more prevalent in the waiting list sample (relative risk 5.4 for participants ages 75 years and older; 95% confidence interval 3.3, 9.0). Women had significantly lower HRQOL, self efficacy, and physical function scores than men. After adjusting for age and sex, significant socioeconomic disparities were also found. Participants who received the lowest income had the poorest HRQOL; those with the least education or the lowest income had the highest psychological distress. Low self efficacy was moderately associated with poor HRQOL (r = 0.49, P < 0.001) and more strongly associated with high psychological distress (r = -0.55, P < 0.001).

Conclusion
Patients waiting for joint replacement have very poor HRQOL and high psychological distress, especially women and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Lengthy waiting lists mean patients can experience extended and potentially avoidable morbidity. Interventions to address psychological distress and self efficacy could reduce this burden and should target women and lower socioeconomic groups.

Patient perspective : choosing or developing instruments

Previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meetings recognized that patients view outcomes of intervention from a different perspective. This preconference position paper briefly sets out 2 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument approaches, the PROMISE computer adaptive testing (CAT) system and development of a rheumatoid arthritis-specific questionnaire to measure fatigue; a tentative proposal for a PRO instrument development pathway is also made.

Measuring the impact of arthritis on worker productivity : perspectives, methodologic issues and contextual factors

Leading up to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting, the goal of the Worker Productivity Special Interest Group (WP-SIG) was to make progress on 3 key issues that relate to the application and interpretation of worker productivity outcomes in arthritis: (1) to review existing conceptual frameworks to help consolidate our intended target and scope of measurement; (2) to examine the methodologic issues associated with our goal of combining multiple indicators of worker productivity loss (e.g., absenteeism <—> presenteeism) into a single comprehensive outcome; and (3) to examine the relevant contextual factors of work and potential implications for the interpretation of scores derived from existing outcome measures. Progress was made on all 3 issues at OMERACT 10. We identified 3 theoretical frameworks that offered unique but converging perspectives on worker productivity loss and/or work disability to provide guidance with classification, selection, and future recommendation of outcomes. Several measurement and analytic approaches to combine absenteeism and presenteeism outcomes were proposed, and the need for further validation of such approaches was also recognized. Finally, participants at the WP-SIG were engaged to brainstorm and provide preliminary endorsements to support key contextual factors of worker productivity through an anonymous “dot voting” exercise. A total of 24 specific factors were identified, with 16 receiving ≥ 1 vote among members, reflecting highly diverse views on specific factors that were considered most important. Moving forward, further progress on these issues remains a priority to help inform the best application of worker productivity outcomes in arthritis research.

Health literacy : what is it and why is it important to measure?

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual’s capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.

Improving care for people with osteoarthritis of the hip and 'knee : how has national policy for osteoarthritis been translated into service models in Australia?

There is strong rationale for improving care for people with chronic conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). Successful implementation of healthcare reform requires new concepts and directions that are strongly supported by policy, new models of care (service redesign) and changes in day-to-day practice (healthcare provider and patient practice). In this paper we discuss the extent to which policy about management of OA of the hip and knee has been translated into new service models in Australia. A structured search of government and other key health websites in Australia was performed to identify policy, funding initiatives and new services models for managing OA of the hip and knee. This search was supported by a literature review. Musculoskeletal conditions were designated a National Health Priority in Australia in 2002. Under the Better Arthritis and Osteoporosis Care initiative, Australia has developed a national policy for OA care and national evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of OA of the hip and knee. Only two well described examples of new chronic disease management service models, the Osteoarthritis Clinical Pathway (OACP) model and the Osteoarthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) were identified. Primarily focused within acute care public hospital settings, these have been shown to be feasible and acceptable but have limited data on clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. While policy is extant, implementation has not been systematic and comprehensive. Clinicians have evidence-based recommendations for OA management but are poorly supported by service models to deliver these effectively and efficiently.

Patient perspective workshop : moving towards OMERACT guidelines for choosing or developing instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes

The workshop Choosing or Developing Instruments held at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 10 meeting was designed to help participants think about the underlying methods of instrument development. Conference pre-reading material and 3 brief introductory presentations elaborated the issues, and participants broke into discussion groups before reconvening to share insights, engage in a more general discussion of the issues, and vote on recommendations. Trade offs between using current imperfect measures and the long and complex process of developing new instruments were considered, together with the need for rigor in patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The main considerations for PRO instrument development were listed and a research agenda for action produced. As part of the agenda for action, it is recommended that researchers and patient partners work together to tackle these issues, and that OMERACT bring forward proposals for acceptable instrument development protocols that would meet an enhanced “Truth” statement in the OMERACT Filter.

Nonpharmacologic interventions need outcomes for evaluating complex interventions in rheumatic diseases

Introduction. Nonpharmacologic interventions are themselves complex and are often combined with drugs and other interventions in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Therefore, overall strategies for treatment are complex interventions. These should be evaluated regarding their processes and outcomes.
Methods. The CARE network, an international organization of health professionals (physicians and nonphysicians) and patients conducted a survey in 2008 to identify core outcomes in the ICF perspective, completed with a second survey (2009–2010) with patients in routine practice. These surveys have provided new information about domains to investigate as a basis for evaluating complex interventions.
Results. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) participants in this Special Interest Group agreed that current outcomes used in pharmacological research are not sufficient if the nonpharmacologic independent or combined contributions are to be assessed; other domains need to be addressed. This is an area of interest for further development.
Conclusion. Recommendations are proposed to develop research in the area of outcome for evaluation of complex interventions in rheumatic diseases.

Influencing health equity : role of the effective consumer scale in measuring skills and abilities in a middle income country

The 2008 World Health Report emphasizes the need for patient-centered primary care service delivery models in which patients are equal partners in the planning and management of their health. It is argued that this involvement will lead to improved management of disease, improved health outcomes and patient satisfaction, better informed decision-making, increased compliance with healthcare decisions, and better resource utilization. This article investigates the domains captured by the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) in relation to vulnerable population groups that experience health inequity. Particular focus is paid to the domain of health literacy as an area fundamental to patients’ involvement in managing their condition and negotiating the healthcare system. In examining the possible influence of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) on health equity, we used the recent translation and validation of the EC-17 scale into Spanish and tested Argentina as an example. Future plans to use the EC-17 with vulnerable groups include formal collaboration and needs assessment with the community to tailor an intervention to meet its needs in a culturally relevant manner. Some systematic reviews have questioned whether interventions to improve effective consumer skills are appropriate in vulnerable populations. We propose that these populations may have the most to gain from such interventions since they might be expected to have relatively lower skills and health literacy than other groups.

Neighborhood disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position, and self-reported chronic arthritis : a cross-sectional multilevel study

Objective To examine the association between individual- and neighborhood-level disadvantage and self-reported arthritis.

Methods We used data from a population-based cross-sectional study conducted in 2007 among 10,757 men and women ages 40–65 years, selected from 200 neighborhoods in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia using a stratified 2-stage cluster design. Data were collected using a mail survey (68.5% response). Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using a census-based composite index, and individual disadvantage was measured using self-reported education, household income, and occupation. Arthritis was indicated by self-report. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling.

Results The overall rate of self-reported arthritis was 23% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 22–24). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, arthritis prevalence was greatest for women (odds ratio [OR] 1.5, 95% CI 1.4–1.7) and in those ages 60–65 years (OR 4.4, 95% CI 3.7–5.2), those with a diploma/associate diploma (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6), those who were permanently unable to work (OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.1–5.3), and those with a household income <$25,999 (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7–2.6). Independent of individual-level factors, residents of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were 42% (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.7) more likely than those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods to self-report arthritis. Cross-level interactions between neighborhood disadvantage and education, occupation, and household income were not significant.

Conclusion Arthritis prevalence is greater in more socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. These are the first multilevel data to examine the relationship between individual- and neighborhood-level disadvantage upon arthritis and have important implications for policy, health promotion, and other intervention strategies designed to reduce the rates of arthritis, indicating that intervention efforts may need to focus on both people and places.