Search

Background: Efficient utilisation of allied health workforce may help address the predicted shortfall of 18 million health workers estimated by 2030. Knowledge about allied health professionals' attrition, or intention to leave, and factors influencing attrition can assist in developing evidence-informed strategies to mitigate this issue. The review aimed to map attrition and attrition intention rates, and its attributing factors for allied health professions worldwide., Methods: Adhering to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across academic databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library database) and grey literature (Google, Google Scholar, organisational websites). Two reviewers independently undertook a two-stage screening process along with data extraction using customised data extraction forms. A narrative synthesis was used to synthesise the data., Results: Thirty-two studies published between 1990 and 2024 were included. Attrition rates ranged from 0.5% to 41% across allied health disciplines. Pharmacists demonstrated the lowest attrition rates, while audiologists reported the highest. Radiographers reported the lowest intent to leave at 7.6%, while occupational therapists showed highest intent to leave, ranging from 10.7% to 74.1%. The analysis revealed three recurring themes contributing to attrition: profession-centric factors (e.g., career progression, job satisfaction, support, and professional growth), systemic-centric factors (e.g., compensation, staffing challenges, clinical practices, patient care, workload), and individual-centric factors (e.g., recognition, the need for change, and burnout)., Conclusion: Attrition in allied health remains a significant challenge. Addressing this issue requires a systemic, nuanced, and evidence-based approach, given the complex, interlinked, and multifaceted factors contributing to attrition. The younger workforce, characterized by changing generational values, necessitates innovative thinking, intersectoral collaboration, and the potential for co-created solutions with, for, and by the allied health workforce., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Yeoh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objectives: Ovarian cancer survivorship is complex and is associated with greater symptom burden, fear of reoccurrence, sexual dysfunction, lower quality of life and heightened existential distress in contrast to other cancers. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness for, and perspective of, psychosocial interventions encompassing psychological, social, and emotional support, tailored to, or involving ovarian cancer survivors at all stages of disease., Methods: Adhering to the PRISMA-SR statement guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, Google, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers independently undertook a two-stage screening process. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was utilised to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data were extracted using customised data extraction tools and narratively synthesised., Results: Thirteen studies were included in this review. Generally positive effects of psychosocial interventions were observed across a range of outcome domains (meaning enhancing, cognitive, social, emotional, and cancer-specific). However, the characteristics of interventions and outcome measures varied across studies. Psychoeducational interventions were identified as the most common psychosocial approach, while Acceptance and Commitment Therapy showed promise in addressing the disease's high symptom burden. Women's perspectives of psychosocial interventions were described as "useful" and promoted positive self-regard., Conclusion: While the evidence base largely support positive effects of psychosocial interventions for ovarian cancer survivors, this finding is constrained by heterogeneity of interventions and modest gains. Future research may explore the standardisation of psychosocial interventions for this demographic, investigating its effects on less explored but prevalent concerns among ovarian cancer survivors such as fear of cancer recurrence and sexual dysfunction., (© 2024 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To investigate factors associated with severe COVID-19 in people with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM)., Methods: Demographic data, clinical characteristics and COVID-19 outcome severity of adults with IIM were obtained from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician-reported registry. A 3-point ordinal COVID-19 severity scale was defined: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation (and no death) and (3) death. ORs were estimated using multivariable ordinal logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed using a 4-point ordinal scale: (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation with no oxygen (and no death), (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation (and no death) and 4) death., Results: Of 348 patients, 48% were not hospitalised, 39% were hospitalised (and did not die) and 13% died. Older age (OR=1.59/decade, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.91), high disease activity (OR=3.50, 95% CI 1.25 to 9.83; vs remission), ≥2 comorbidities (OR=2.63, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.98; vs none), prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day (OR=2.40, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.28; vs no intake) and exposure to rituximab (OR=2.71, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.72; vs conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only) were independently associated with severe COVID-19. In addition to these variables, in the sensitivity analyses, male sex (OR range: 1.65-1.83; vs female) was also significantly associated with severe outcomes, while COVID-19 diagnosis after 1 October 2020 (OR range: 0.51-0.59; vs on/before 15 June 2020) was significantly associated with less severe outcomes, but these associations were not significant in the main model (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.59; and OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.00; respectively)., Conclusions: This is the first large registry data on outcomes of COVID-19 in people with IIM. Older age, male sex, higher comorbidity burden, high disease activity, prednisolone-equivalent dose >7.5 mg/day and rituximab exposure were associated with severe COVID-19. These findings will enable risk stratification and inform management decisions for patients with IIM., Competing Interests: Competing interests: S-AY is supported by vs Arthritis, Royal College of Physicians, Rosetrees Trust, University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and University College London Hospitals Charity, all unrelated to this manuscript. MG is a Pfizer employee as of March 2022. KLH has received support from EULAR for database maintenance and data extraction related to this manuscript, KLH has received grants from Pfizer and BMS for work unrelated to this manuscript, honoraria from Abbvie unrelated to this manuscript, and is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Lilly, and has a leadership or fiduciary role in EULAR, unrelated to this manuscript. CR receives consulting fees from AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Novartis, Pfizer, honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Biogen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, travel support from Amgen, Celltrion, Galapagos, patents planned, issued or pending by Astra Zeneca, and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services by Biogen and Lilly, all unrelated to this manuscript. GJP-E has received grants from Janssen, consulting fees and honoraria from GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, Werfen, travel support from GSK, Montpellier, Boehringer Ingelheim, and participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Pfizer, GSK and Janssen, and has received equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Janssen, all unrelated to this manuscript. REV has received grants from BMS, Novartis, Pfizer and honoraria from Hexal, all unrelated to this manuscript. EV has received honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen and travel support from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and participates on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen, and is President of Asociacion de Rumatologia del Noreste Argentino, all unrelated to this manuscript. ES receives honoraria from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance and non-financial support from Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, unrelated to this manuscript. JH receives grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation, salary support from the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance, consulting fees from Novartis, Pfizer, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this manuscript. MGM is a patient consultant for Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb, all unrelated to this manuscript, and receives honoraria from Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, all unrelated to this study. RG has received honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, AbbVie, Cornerstones, Novartis, travel support from Pfizer and Janssen, and is a member of the New Zealand Rheumatology Association executive and ACR Global Engagement Special Committee, all unrelated to this manuscript. SB is a Pfizer employee and has received honoraria from AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis, Pfizer, has received travel support from Pfizer, and owns restricted stock units with Pfizer as a Pfizer employee, all unrelated to this manuscript. PCR has received grants from Pfizer, Novartis, UCB, Janssen, all unrelated to this manuscript, consulting fees from AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Atom Biosciences, Gilead, Kukdong, GSK, all unrelated to this manuscript, honoraria from AbbVie, UCB, Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript, travel support from BMS, UCB, Pfizer, Novartis, all unrelated to this manuscript. PCR reports participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Atom Biosciences, unrelated to this manuscript, and leadership role in the Australian Rheumatology Association and Arthritis Queensland, unrelated to this manuscript. JY has received support from NIH/NIAMS (grants to UCSF) for the present manuscript, grants from Gilead, Astra Zeneca, BMS Foundation, all unrelated to this manuscript, consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Aurinia, Pfizer, all unrelated to this manuscript. PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), University College London Hospitals (UCLH), Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Orphazyme, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, all unrelated to this manuscript., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: The aim was to assess rheumatology clinicians' perceptions of telemedicine and their experiences before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and collected responses from rheumatology clinicians worldwide, between November 2020 and February 2021, regarding use and perceptions of telemedicine in rheumatology. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis for free-text responses., Results: The survey was completed by 349 rheumatology clinicians from 49 countries; 59% were female and about two-thirds were in the 30-50 years age group. Academic affiliations were held by 55% of participants, and 44% were from North America. Before the pandemic, 24% of participants had experience with telemedicine, whereas about three-quarters used telemedicine for the first time during the pandemic. Overall, 56% thought they provided less adequate care with telemedicine. More than half of clinicians felt that telemedicine was adequate for evaluating crystalline arthritis, inflammatory arthritis and lupus flares. Telemedicine was felt to be inadequate for flares of myositis, vasculitis and scleroderma. Technical problems were reported in 29% of telemedicine encounters and were most commonly related to patient-encountered difficulties., Conclusion: Most rheumatology clinicians used telemedicine for the first time during the pandemic. The quality of care provided was thought to be inferior to that provided in person for specific clinical situations. Additional efforts are needed to address barriers to effective telemedicine, such as patient-related technology issues, challenges with building rapport and performing a physical examination, and to define the appropriate scope of clinical scenarios conducive to telemedicine., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the clinical experiences, research opportunities and well-being of rheumatology trainees., Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, Web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish or French from 19 August 2020 to 5 October 2020. Adult and paediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the perceptions of trainees regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient care and redeployment, learning and supervision, research and well-being were assessed., Results: There were 302 respondents from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training. An increase in non-rheumatology clinical work was reported by 45%, with 68% of these having been redeployed to COVID-19. Overall, trainees reported a negative impact on their learning opportunities during rheumatology training, including outpatient clinics (79%), inpatient consultations (59%), didactic teaching (55%), procedures (53%), teaching opportunities (52%) and ultrasonography (36%). Impacts on research experiences were reported by 46% of respondents, with 39% of these reporting that COVID-19 negatively affected their ability to continue their pre-pandemic research. Burnout and increases in stress were reported by 50% and 68%, respectively. Physical health was negatively impacted by training programme changes in 25% of respondents., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on rheumatology training and trainee well-being. Our study highlights the extent of this impact on research opportunities and clinical care, which are highly relevant to future curriculum planning and the clinical learning environment., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: To determine whether concomitant HCQ modulates the increase in erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume (MCV) caused by MTX therapy, and whether this is associated with improved clinical response in RA., Methods: A retrospective observational analysis was conducted on two independent hospital datasets of biologic-naïve, early-RA patients who started oral MTX. Baseline characteristics, DAS28-ESR and monthly MCV after starting MTX were obtained. Conventional and machine-learning statistical approaches were applied to the discovery cohort (Cohort 1, 655 patients) and results validated using Cohort 2 (225 patients)., Results: HCQ therapy with MTX was associated with a 2-fold increase in the likelihood of response defined in this study as clinical remission or low disease activity at 6 months (P <0.001). The improved clinical outcome of combination HCQ and MTX therapy was associated with an accelerated rise in MCV from 2 months after commencing therapy. The increase in MCV at 3 months was equivalent to the contemporaneous reduction in the DAS (DAS28-ESR) in predicting clinical response at 6 months. Using latent class mixed modelling, five trajectories of MCV change over 6 months from baseline were identified. The odds ratio of response to treatment was 16.2 (95% CI 5.7, 46.4, P <0.001) in those receiving combination therapy classified within the MCV elevation >5 fl class, which contained the most patients, compared with MTX alone., Conclusion: Our data provide mechanistic insight into the synergistic clinical benefit of concomitant HCQ with MTX, boosting the rise in MCV, which could serve as a companion biomarker of treatment response., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of telemedicine use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on rheumatology trainees., Methods: A voluntary, anonymous, web-based survey was administered in English, Spanish, or French from August 19 to October 5, 2020. Adult and pediatric rheumatology trainees were invited to participate via social media and email. Using multiple-choice questions and Likert scales, the survey assessed prior and current telemedicine use, impact on training, and supervision after COVID-19 prompted rapid telemedicine implementation., Results: Surveys were received from 302 trainees from 33 countries, with 83% in adult rheumatology training programs. Reported telemedicine use increased from 13% before the pandemic to 82% during the pandemic. United States trainees predominantly used video visits, whereas outside the United States telemedicine was predominantly audio only. Most (65%) evaluated new patients using telemedicine. More respondents were comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up patients (69%) than for new patients (25%). Only 39% of respondents reported receiving telemedicine-focused training, including instruction on software, clinical skills, and billing, whereas more than half of United States trainees (59%) had training. Postconsultation verbal discussion was the most frequent form of supervision; 24% reported no supervision. Trainees found that telemedicine negatively impacted supervision (50%) and the quality of clinical teaching received (70%), with only 9% reporting a positive impact., Conclusions: Despite widespread uptake of telemedicine, a low proportion of trainees received telemedicine training, and many lacked comfort in evaluating patients, particularly new patients. Inadequate supervision and clinical teaching were areas of concern. If telemedicine remains in widespread use, ensuring appropriate trainee supervision and teaching should be prioritized., (© 2021 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: AMK is Deputy Director of the NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre and an NIHR Senior Investigator. The other authors declare no competing interests. S-AY is funded by the Royal College of Physicians, Rosetrees Trust, NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre, and UCLH Charities. MC is funded by the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre. Funding support has been received from the NIHR UCLH Biomedical Research Centre to run the UCLH Patient Partners in Rheumatology Research Initiative. LCC is an NIHR Clinician Scientist and Senior Clinical Research Fellow funded by an NIHR Clinician Scientist award. The OPEN ARMS group is supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The NIHR Leeds, UCLH, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centres are funded by the NIHR. The views expressed are of those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders, the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. None of the funding bodies have been involved in the direct funding or preparation of this manuscript. All authors accept responsibility to submit for publication. The authors also acknowledge team members who have been instrumental in enabling the success of these patient and public involvement initiatives: Leeds—Gwyneth Cracknell, Amy Rebane, Sue Smith, Donna Johnstone; UCLH—Eleanor Hawkins, Raj Amarnani, James Kimpton, Christopher Wincup, Meena Naja; Oxford—Cushla Cooper, Matthew Costa, Josie Eade, Natalie Ford, Matthew Gardiner, Jenny Gould, Dave Greenall, Jonathan Rees, Kassim Javaid, Sarah Snelling, Esther Williamson

Pulmonary manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are wide-ranging and debilitating in nature. Previous studies suggest that anywhere between 20 and 90% of patients with SLE will be troubled by some form of respiratory involvement throughout the course of their disease. This can include disorders of the lung parenchyma (such as interstitial lung disease and acute pneumonitis), pleura (resulting in pleurisy and pleural effusion), and pulmonary vasculature [including pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), pulmonary embolic disease, and pulmonary vasculitis], whilst shrinking lung syndrome is a rare complication of the disease. Furthermore, the risks of respiratory infection (which often mimic acute pulmonary manifestations of SLE) are increased by the immunosuppressive treatment that is routinely used in the management of lupus. Although these conditions commonly present with a combination of dyspnea, cough and chest pain, it is important to consider that some patients may be asymptomatic with the only suggestion of the respiratory disorder being found incidentally on thoracic imaging or pulmonary function tests. Treatment decisions are often based upon evidence from case reports or small cases series given the paucity of clinical trial data specifically focused on pulmonary manifestations of SLE. Many therapeutic options are often initiated based on studies in severe manifestations of SLE affecting other organ systems or from experience drawn from the use of these therapeutics in the pulmonary manifestations of other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases. In this review, we describe the key features of the pulmonary manifestations of SLE and approaches to investigation and management in clinical practice., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Amarnani, Yeoh, Denneny and Wincup.)

The majority of rheumatic diseases are chronic and require long-term use of disease-modifying agents to confer the best chance of controlling the disease. A significant proportion of these drugs have a risk, albeit small, of potentially serious side effects, such as neutropenia; therefore, there has been an understandable concern over the use of potentially toxic rheumatic drugs in the elderly. Factors that may contribute to this concern include age, pre-existing co-morbidities, polypharmacy, difficulty in monitoring side effects, and patient perception. The risk of using such medication needs to be balanced with their benefits in controlling chronic disease. This review discusses how rheumatic disease and anti-rheumatic medication are associated with neutropenia in an older age group. Of the rheumatic diseases, we give special focus to rheumatoid arthritis and the use of methotrexate, as well as touching on management considerations in neutropenia.

Over the last decade, operating theatres and Intensive Care Units (ICUs) have established systematic methods for performing procedures on patients that have been shown to reduce complications and improve patient safety. Whilst the use of procedure rooms on Acute Medicine Units (AMUs) is highly recommended by patient safety groups and Royal College publications, they are not universally available or appropriately utilised. In this article we discuss a quality improvement project that was undertaken on an AMU at a large university teaching hospital in the United Kingdom, highlighting its successes and challenges.