An evidence‐informed, integrated framework for rheumatoid arthritis care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Providing adequate care for persons with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an ongoing challenge. Although the current evidence supports the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) within the first 3 months of symptoms appearing (1–3), delay in DMARD use and other gaps in care have been reported across communities (4–9). The situation has worsened due to the shortage of specialists (10). The process of seeking medical treatment begins with the person’s recognition of the symptoms and the action of visiting a family physician (FP) (Figure 1, levels A and B). The FP then performs the appropriate investigations, and if RA is suspected, the FP refers the person to a rheumatologist (levels B and C) who then conducts further tests, provides a diagnosis, and prescribes DMARDs and other appropriate medications (level D). Next, the person may be referred to the available community resources and/or rehabilitation programs that enable self-management (levels E1–E4), and will be periodically assessed by a rheumatologist (level F). Successful delivery of these interventions is largely dependent on the availability of local programs and the coordination among the rheumatologist, the FP, and other health professionals. In the case of severe joint damage, the person is referred for an orthopedic consultation and surgery may be considered (levels G1–G4). Moving from one level to the next involves a potential wait period, which may be caused by, for example, delays in patients’ and health professionals’ recognition of RA symptoms, delays in referral to rheumatologists, lack of access to specialist care or community resources, or patients’ own choices. Delays may occur at any of the following periods (Figure 1): Wait 1: the time between a person’s development and awareness of the seriousness of the symptoms and the first visit with an FP; Wait 2: the time between the first visit with an FP and the first visit with a rheumatologist; Wait 3: from the first rheumatology visit to the date the patient starts the appropriate therapy; Wait 4: from a patient starting medication to the date when he or she has access to adequate resources that enable self-management; andWait 5: from the decision date for an orthopedic consultation to the date of the patient’s first visit with a surgeon and, subsequently, the date of surgery. The delay between symptom onset and DMARD prescription for individuals with RA is a problem across countries (Waits 1–3), with a median lag time ranging from 6.5 to 19 months (5–9). A few studies have attempted to estimate the length of Wait 1, but the findings are inconsistent. Two studies, a retrospective cohort from the US (11) and a prospective study from Norway (12), estimated a median delay of 4 weeks for the first FP visit. However, more recent research from the UK estimated 12 weeks (13), with 38% of people waiting more than 3 months before seeing an FP (14). The lag time from FP visit to rheumatologist consultation is believed to be a major source of the delay (Wait 2). In a UK study, 44% waited more than 3 months for a specialist referral (14). Recent research from Canada also found a median lag time of 79 days between the FP visit and the first rheumatologist visit (15). In contrast, the Linda C. Li, PT, PhD: University of British Columbia and Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Elizabeth M. Badley, DPhil: Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit, Toronto Western Research Institute and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Crystal MacKay, PT, MHSc: Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit, Toronto Western Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Dianne Mosher, MD, FRCP(C): Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; Shahin (Walji) Jamal, MD, FRCP(C): St. Michael’s Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Anamaria Jones, PT, PhD(Candidate): Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Claire Bombardier, MD, FRCP(C): University Health Network, University of Toronto, Institute for Work & Health, and Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Mosher has received honoraria (less than $10,000) from serving on the advisory board for Pfizer, and has received speaking fees (less than $10,000 each) from Schering, Amgen, and Wyeth. Address correspondence to Linda C. Li, PT, PhD, Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, 895 West 10th Avenue, Room 324, Vancouver, British Columbia V5Z 1L7, Canada. E-mail: lli@arthritisresearch.ca. Submitted for publication December 27, 2007; accepted in revised form April 22, 2008. Arthritis & Rheumatism (Arthritis Care & Research) Vol. 59, No. 8, August 15, 2008, pp 1171–1183 DOI 10.1002/art.23931 © 2008, American College of Rheumatology
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,124 | 0,124 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,011 | 0,018 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».