067 Asking the right questions? Rheumatoid arthritis patients’ views on the use of patient reported outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Focusing on assessment of a patient’s disease activity burden may lead to other important issues being overlooked during rheumatology appointments. Patient reported outcomes (PROMs) allow patients to directly communicate their experiences of specific issues to clinicians. We conducted an online survey of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to ask their opinion on the potential value of gathering PROMs in addition to current assessments. Methods: Clinicians, representatives of National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS) and a small focus group of patients collaborated to produce an online survey asking patients’ opinions on the use of PROMs during routine appointments and which PROMs they felt would be most valuable to collect. Mixed question styles were employed gathering semiquantitative data (e.g. strength of agreement) in relation to single subject statements. Links to the survey were distributed by NRAS via email and social media and results were interpreted with input from NRAS representatives and the patient focus group. Results: There were 1,287 respondents; 86% female, median age 62 years (IQR 54-69), median duration 10 years (IQR 5-18). 65% of respondents felt a rheumatology doctor was most likely to make decisions regarding RA treatment changes. The combination of individuals felt to be most important to making shared decisions was the patient (85% respondents), rheumatologist (93%) and specialist nurse (60%). 82% agreed or strongly agreed that patient reported information should be given greater importance when making decisions about treatment changes. 62% agreed or strongly agreed that using PROMs to influence treatment decisions would be safe. 67% agreed or strongly agreed that using PROMs would lead to more effective treatment. 78% agreed or strongly agreed that using PROMs would lead to treatment that was more specific to their needs/goals. 72% agreed or strongly agreed that they would be happy for rheumatologists to base treatment decisions upon PROMs. PROMs relating to pain, fatigue and quality of life received the highest scores for use in influencing treatment decisions and assessing treatment response. The most popular method (43%) of completing PROMs was at home, online, prior to attending rheumatology appointment. Conclusion: Incorporating PROMs into routine assessments is supported consistently by RA patients, who consider it safe and potentially leading to more effective treatment that is specific to their needs. RA patients favour the use of PROMs related to pain, fatigue and quality of life; however, further work is required to assess the effectiveness, safety and most efficient means of implementation. Disclosures: J. Dale: Grants/research support; NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Research Scotland. Other; Abbvie. S. Clements: None. K. D: None. H. L: None. A. S: None. L. Connell: None. C. Jacklin: None. A. Bosworth: None.
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 | 0,014 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».