Patients’ and carers’ views and expectations about intensive management for moderate rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensive management for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves frequent hospital visits and adjusted doses or combinations of medication. Research is currently underway to test whether or not intensive management strategies are valuable in moderately active disease, however, patient views on intensive management in this disease group are unknown. The objectives of this study were to explore the views and expectations of patients with moderately active RA and of carers of patients with moderately active RA. We conducted focus groups and one-to-one interviews in 2014 with 14 participants (9 patients, 5 carers) from 4 rheumatology clinics across 3 London Hospital NHS Trusts. Non-English-speaking patients were included with the assistance of a professional translator. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed and transcripts analysed using a framework analysis approach. Four main themes were identified: 'Hopes and Expectations of Intensive Management', 'Acceptability of Intensive Management', 'Patient Education' and 'The Importance of Continuity of Care'. Our main findings were that attendance at frequent clinic appointments was largely acceptable to patients and carers. Views on taking higher doses of medication depended on how stable patients were on their current treatment regime. Continuity of care from the rheumatologist and the provision of written/verbal information about intensive management were important to patients and carers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".