Search

Objectives PMR causes pain, stiffness and disability in older adults. Measuring the impact of the condition from the patient's perspective is vital to high-quality research and patient-centred care, yet there are no validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PMR. We set out to develop and psychometrically evaluate a PMR-specific PROM. Methods Two cross-sectional postal surveys of people with a confirmed diagnosis of PMR were used to provide data for field testing and psychometric evaluation. A total of 256 participants completed the draft PROM. Distribution of item responses was examined, and exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to inform item reduction, formation of dimension structure and scoring system development. Some 179 participants completed the PROM at two time points, along with comparator questionnaires and anchor questions. Test–retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness were evaluated. Results Results from the field-testing study led to the formation of the PMR-Impact Scale (PMR-IS), comprising four domains (symptoms, function, psychological and emotional well-being, and steroid side effects). Construct validity and test–retest reliability met accepted quality criteria for each domain. There was insufficient evidence from this study to determine its ability to detect flares/deterioration, but the PMR-IS was responsive to improvements in the condition. Conclusion The PMR-IS offers researchers a new way to assess patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies of PMR. It has been developed robustly, with patient input at every stage. It has good construct validity and test–retest reliability. Further work is needed to fully establish its responsiveness and interpretability parameters, and to assess its real-world clinical utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the recommended diagnosis and care of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) in primary settings except in complex cases. Topics covered include conditions mimicking PMR that contain risks, variability of PMR in primary care, and the healthcare costs of misdiagnosis and the burden of glucocorticoids. Also noted is the need to develop pathways to assist people with suspected PMR, balanced between musculoskeletal symptoms, and glucocorticoid toxicity.

Background: Developed in 2019, the Community Rapid Intervention Service (CRIS) is a community intervention service aiming to prevent hospital admissions. CRIS provides a response within two hours to patients with sub-acute medical needs in their usual place of residence. This evaluation aimed to identify challenges and facilitators to implementation of the service, with a view to informing future service development, optimising patient care and disseminating learning to other areas looking to implement similar services. Methods: This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an evaluation framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local healthcare system leaders, clinicians that worked within the CRIS, and clinicians who interfaced with the CRIS. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Two Community of Practice (CoP) meetings were held to gather stakeholders' perspectives of the evaluation. Results: Three key themes were identified from the analysis of 13 interviews: contextual factors influencing implementation, service identity and navigating complexity. Contextual factors such the influence of the Covid 19 pandemic upon health services and the expansion of the CRIS were discussed by participants. The adaptability of the service was deemed both a facilitator and challenge of implementation. Ways to build-on and improve the existing CRIS model were suggested. Conclusion: This evaluation has shown that the CRIS may need to be redefined with clarity provided as to how the service interfaces with other urgent and planned care offered in acute, primary, community and social services. Structuring the evaluation around the CFIR was helpful in identifying facilitators and challenges that influenced the implementation of the CRIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore patient experiences of living with, and receiving treatment for, PMR.Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews, with 22 patients with PMR recruited from general practices in South Yorkshire. Thematic analysis using a constant comparative method, ran concurrently with the interviews and was used to derive a conceptual framework.Results: 5 Key themes emerged highlighting the importance of: (1) pain, stiffness and weakness, (2) disability, (3) treatment and disease course, (4) experience of care, (5) psychological impact of PMR. Patients emphasised the profound disability experienced that was often associated with fear and vulnerability, highlighting how this was often not recognised by health care professionals. Patients' experiences also challenge medical convention, particularly around the concept of 'weakness' as a symptom, the use of morning stiffness as a measure of disease activity and the myth of full resolution of symptoms with steroid treatment. Treatment decisions were complex, with patients balancing glucocorticoid side effects against persistent symptoms.Conclusions: Patients often described their experience of PMR in terms of disability rather than focussing on localised symptoms. The associated psychological impact was significant.Practice Implications: Recognising this is key to achieving shared understanding, reaching the correct diagnosis promptly, and formulating a patient-centred management plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To explore patient experiences of living with, and receiving treatment for, PMR. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews, with 22 patients with PMR recruited from general practices in South Yorkshire. Thematic analysis using a constant comparative method, ran concurrently with the interviews and was used to derive a conceptual framework. Results 5 Key themes emerged highlighting the importance of: (1) pain, stiffness and weakness, (2) disability, (3) treatment and disease course, (4) experience of care, (5) psychological impact of PMR. Patients emphasised the profound disability experienced that was often associated with fear and vulnerability, highlighting how this was often not recognised by health care professionals. Patients’ experiences also challenge medical convention, particularly around the concept of ‘weakness’ as a symptom, the use of morning stiffness as a measure of disease activity and the myth of full resolution of symptoms with steroid treatment. Treatment decisions were complex, with patients balancing glucocorticoid side effects against persistent symptoms. Conclusions Patients often described their experience of PMR in terms of disability rather than focussing on localised symptoms. The associated psychological impact was significant. Practice implications Recognising this is key to achieving shared understanding, reaching the correct diagnosis promptly, and formulating a patient-centred management plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper describes and critically reflects on how children and young people (CYP) acted as public advisors to coproduce health information materials about Long Covid for younger audiences. This work was underpinned by the Lundy model, a framework which provides guidance on facilitating CYP to actively contribute to matters which affect them. Methods: Coproduction activity sessions took place with CYP in schools as well as video conferences with a CYP stakeholder group and CYP with Long Covid. Activities encouraged CYP to focus on the content, format, and design of materials and used problem‐based and collaborative learning to encourage engagement with the project. Using a range of methods and open discussion, CYP codesigned a series of Long Covid health information materials for younger audiences. Results: Sixty‐six CYP (aged 10–18), and two young adults were involved. CYP codesigned specifications for the final materials and provided feedback on early designs. The project led to the development of a series of health information materials targeted at CYP: a short social media campaign with six short videos and a 12‐page illustrated leaflet about Long Covid; released on social media and distributed in local area. All the CYP were positive about the project and their involvement. Discussion: Involving CYP led to the development of innovative and engaging information materials (influence). Developing rapport was important when working with CYP and this was facilitated by using approaches and activities to establish an environment (space) where the CYP felt comfortable sharing their views (voice) and being listened to (audience) by the adults in the project. Working with external groups who are willing to share their expertise can help the meaningful involvement of voices 'less heard'. Public Contribution: One CYP coapplicant contributed to the project design and facilitation of PPIE sessions, 64 CYP were involved in the PPIE sessions to design and feedback on materials. Two young adult media producers worked with CYP to produce these materials, another CYP supported this process. Three public contributors were involved in the preparation of this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Despite little evidence that analgesics are effective in inflammatory arthritis (IA), studies report substantial opioid prescribing. The extent this applies to other analgesics is uncertain. We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of analgesic prescribing in patients with IA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum to evaluate this. Methods From 2004 to 2020, cross-sectional analyses evaluated analgesic prescription annual prevalence in RA, PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and geography. Joinpoint regression evaluated temporal prescribing trends. Cohort studies determined prognostic factors at diagnosis for chronic analgesic prescriptions using Cox proportional hazards models. Results Analgesic prescribing declined over time but remained common: 2004 and 2020 IA prescription prevalence was 84.2/100 person-years (PY) (95% CI 83.9, 84.5) and 64.5/100 PY (64.2, 64.8), respectively. In 2004, NSAIDs were most prescribed (56.1/100 PY; 55.8, 56.5), falling over time. Opioids were most prescribed in 2020 (39.0/100 PY; 38.7, 39.2). Gabapentinoid prescribing increased: 2004 prevalence 1.1/100 PY (1.0, 1.2); 2020 prevalence 9.9/100 PY (9.7, 10.0). Most opioid prescriptions were chronic (2020 prevalence 23.4/100 PY [23.2, 23.6]). Non-NSAID analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA, older people, females and deprived areas/northern England. Conversely, NSAID prescribing was commoner in axSpA/males, varying little by deprivation/geography. Peri-diagnosis was high-risk for starting chronic opioid/NSAID prescriptions. Prognostic factors for chronic opioid/gabapentinoid and NSAID prescriptions differed, with NSAIDs having no consistently significant association with deprivation (unlike opioids/gabapentinoids). Conclusion IA analgesic prescribing of all classes is widespread. This is neither evidence-based nor in line with guidelines. Peri-diagnosis is an opportune moment to reduce chronic analgesic prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain is a major challenge for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Depression and anxiety are common comorbidities in IA, associating with worse outcomes. How they relate to pain is uncertain, with existing systematic reviews (a) mainly considering cross-sectional studies, (b) focusing on the relationship between pain and mental health in the context of disease activity/quality of life, and (c) not specifically considering the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain. This PROSPERO-registered (CRD42023411823) systematic review will address this knowledge-gap by synthesizing evidence to summarise the associations (and potential mediators) between pain and depression/anxiety and evaluate the impact of treating co-morbid depression/anxiety on pain in IA. Relevant databases will be searched, articles screened and their quality appraised (using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools) by two reviewers. Eligible studies will include adults with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, be a clinical trial or observational study, and either (a) report the relationship between pain and depression/anxiety (observational studies/baseline trials), or (b) randomise participants to a pharmacological or psychological treatment to manage depression/anxiety with a pain outcome as an endpoint (trials). To synthesise data on the association between pain and depression/anxiety, where available adjusted coefficients from regression models will be pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. A synthesis without meta-analysis will summarise mediators. To evaluate the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain, endpoint mean differences between treatment arms will be combined in a random-effects meta-analysis. Through understanding how depression/anxiety contribute to pain in IA, our review has the potential to help optimise approaches to IA pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]