MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4411420878 · doi:10.1016/j.ard.2025.05.734

POS0347-PARE A NATIONAL SURVEY OF RHEUMATOLOGY TELEPHONE ADVICE LINE SUPPORT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: USER PERSPECTIVES

2025· article· en· W4411420878 sur OpenAlexaff
Ailsa Bosworth, Sarah Ryan, Samantha Hider, Stacey Matthews

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueHealthcare Systems and Technology
Établissements canadiensArthritis Society
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAdvice (programming)Family medicineRheumatologyTelephone surveyMedical educationInternal medicineAdvertising

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Telephone advicelines are available in the majority of NHS rheumatology departments so that patients can speak with a member of the rheumatology team between appointments to provide support and guidance on aspects of their care (BSR 2020). For people contacting the service with heightened disease activity or medication issues, there is a recommended response time of 1-2 days (NICE 2020). The demand for rheumatology telephone advicelines is high, influenced by reconfiguration of services post pandemic and difficulties patients face accessing primary care services. These factors coupled with the implementation of patient initiated follow up (PIFU), have increased the use of telephone adviceline services. A recent UK survey of how rheumatology telephone advicelines currently operate, identified that nurses were struggling to cope with the current demand, resulting in patients waiting longer to have their calls returned, negatively impacting on the emotional health of nurses with increased levels of stress and anxiety reported. Despite rheumatology telephone advicelines being established for the benefit of patients there has been a scarcity of research on patients' experiences, and the aim of this survey was to explore the experiences and expectations people with RA/inflammatory arthritis using telephone adviceline services. Objectives: An online questionnaire was developed by NRAS with people with rheumatoid arthritis and with input from health professional stakeholders including rheumatology nurses and a rheumatologist. The survey was aimed at people who had used an NHS rheumatology telephone adviceline service. Potential participants accessed an electronic link to an invitation letter, and a questionnaire. Methods: The survey was advertised via the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society to its member and non-member communities through social media. This survey was conducted between August and September 2024. NRAS collaborated with Prof. Sarah Ryan and Prof. Sam Hider and nursing team at MPFH and the Haywood Hospital, Stoke on Trent. The survey collected data on participants' demographics, how advicelines function, experiences of using the adviceline and how services could be improved. Data was collected via an electronic questionnaire using Microsoft forms. The survey consisted of 3 sections including demographic data, how telephone advice lines services function and experiences of using a rheumatology telephone advice line. There was also a free text section asking participants to comment on how rheumatology telephone advice line services could be improved. The free text comments were read and coded thematically by members of Prof. Ryan's team. Connected themes were then clustered together and further refined until the main themes were agreed upon. Results: A total of 1423 participants completed the survey. The majority were female, (n=1338, 94%), white (n=1455, 95%) had rheumatoid arthritis (n=1288,91%), with a disease duration of over 6 years (n=975,68%) and aged between 61-80 years (n=849, 56%). Most services were automated (n=1273,85%), although participants said they would prefer to speak to someone directly (n=889,59%). The main reasons for contacting the advice line were experiencing a flare (n=946,66%), pain (n=876, 61) and concerns about medicines (n=863, 61%). Most participants found the advice given to be ‘helpful to very helpful' (n=847,59%) and were ‘confident to very confident' (n-866) that they could implement the advice given. 839 (56%) calls were returned within 48 hours. There were 665 free text responses regarding how telephone advice lines services could be improved and these focused on three main areas; •increasing availability •improving response times •employing more nurses Conclusion: There is an increasing and high demand for rheumatology advicelines services by patients with inflammatory arthritis due to the difficulties many patients are currently experiencing trying to contact their team or their GP for help with disease management and symptom control, and potentially also due to the numbers of patients being moved onto Patient Initiated Follow-up pathways (PIFU). Having a robust telephone adviceline service that can respond quickly to patient need has become more important due to the number and complexity of drugs, making non specialists less able to confidently provide advice. If callers experiencing disease side effects and obtain the therapy management support they need, then a large proportion do not go on to search for further healthcare. This survey, which is the first national survey of RA patients using NHS rheumatology telephone advice line services across the UK, has highlighted the following key messages: There is an increasing and high demand for rheumatology advicelines services by patients with RA/inflammatory arthritis. Services need to be redesigned to improve response times. Patients require access to additional self-management resources. Therefore, different methods of supporting patients is required including redesigning services, sharing with patients the likely response times, reviewing accessibility and signposting patients to other trusted and evidence-based sources of self-management support. A recent evaluation of an online learning module to support the self-management of pain and flares in people with rheumatoid arthritis showed an increase in both knowledge and confidence post module in managing symptoms and people welcomed access to information from a trusted source which they had not received from the NHS. REFERENCES: NIL . Acknowledgements: NIL . Disclosure of Interests: Ailsa Bosworth NRAS has received educational grants from a number of pharmaceutical companies but not in relation to this abstract. Sarah Ryan: None declared. Samantha Hider: None declared. Sally Matthews: None declared . © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,280
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,959

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,087
Tête enseignante GPT0,354
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnnals of the Rheumatic DiseasesMême sujetHealthcare Systems and TechnologyTravaux en français237 207