Research priorities for arthritis professional education

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions

OBJECTIVE

Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SETTING AND POPULATION

Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017059250.

Regional Musculoskeletal Examination

Confusion exists over which musculoskeletal examination skills medical students should learn. This study aimed to explore the views of third-year medical students. This was a qualitative study to allow in-depth exploration of beliefs and attitudes. Twenty students were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 focus groups. Their attitudes towards musculoskeletal examination were explored and discussed. The groups' discussions were recorded, transcribed, and framework analysis was undertaken with the aid of NUD*IST computer software. The following themes were identified: students dislike eponymous names for clinical tests; students felt there is a need for a more structured approach to musculoskeletal examination; students appeared unaware that many clinical tests were not based on evidence; students complained of a lack of confidence in the use of musculoskeletal clinical tests. Student's confidence in their musculoskeletal examination skills may be improved by the development of an agreed set of so-called core examination skills.

Knowledge and attitudes of primary care physicians toward sleep and sleep disorders

PURPOSE

To assess primary care physician (PCP) sleep knowledge and attitudes.

METHOD

A sample of 580 PCPs practicing adult medicine in Northeast Ohio was selected, using a systematic random method (every 10th name on the American Medical Association mailing list). A three-part structured survey consisted of 30 attitude items and 33 multiple-choice test questions assessing knowledge, with some demographic questions. Repeat mailings were sent to nonrespondents 4 to 6 weeks apart from October 1999 through April 2000.

RESULTS

46 surveys were undeliverable and 105 (20%) useable questionnaires were returned. Of respondents, 94% were board certified with 76% certified in more than one area. When asked to rate their knowledge of sleep disorders, none rated themselves as excellent, 10% rated themselves as good, 60% as fair, and 30% as poor. The factors rated highest in influencing current practices regarding sleep and sleep disorders were articles in journals, continuing medical education courses, and discussions with specialists. Knowledge average was 34% (3 to 94%). Though virtually all agreed that prevention counseling should be a part of patient care, fewer agreed that they spend more time counseling patients on the benefits of sleep than of diet or exercise.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of PCPs rated their own knowledge of sleep disorders as fair or poor. Knowledge testing and attitude assessment lend credence to these perceptions.

Improved training of house officers in a rheumatology consult service

This study examined whether the clinical environment could be used to increase internal medicine house officers' adoption of care recommendations taught in a didactic conference. Subjects were 11 internal medicine house officers who served 6-week rheumatology elective rotations. At the start of each of four rotation periods, house officers attended a 1-hour conference in which periarticular rheumatic disorders associated with knee pain (anserine bursitis, pseudothrombophlebitis) and shoulder pain (bicipital tendinitis) were discussed. All house officers also practiced physical examination techniques on anatomic models simulating the disorders. During alternate rotation periods, reminder sheets were appended to the records of arthritis patients with histories of chronic knee or shoulder pain. The frequency with which house officers followed conference recommendations was documented by direct observation (6 house officers in 17 encounters with reminders, 5 house officers in 30 encounters without reminders). Specific questioning about a recent history of knee or shoulder pain and the performance of four of five recommended physical examination maneuvers were increased significantly by reminder sheets in patients' charts (P < 0.05 for all). Although rheumatology faculty often have limited options available to increase the number of house officer trainees or to intensify clinical activity, qualitative improvements within existing logistic parameters are feasible by assuring that the clinical environment (e.g., patient records) contains salient cues that will prompt desired actions.

Doctor-patient communication in rheumatological disorders

Organized educational programmes and individual educational counselling are primary means by which health care providers equip rheumatic disease patients with the skills and knowledge necessary to monitor and manage variable symptoms. Many outpatients educational programmes were evaluated in the 1980s. In brief, well designed programmes are generally effective in improving knowledge and compliance with a regimen, and in reducing pain, depression, and disability. However, most persons with arthritis never use such programmes. Greater emphasis is needed on education of patients at the time of the clinical encounter, where the greatest opportunity lies for reaching the greatest number. Researchers have examined the dynamics of the doctor-patient interaction during the clinical encounter. Results show that: better information sharing leads to improved patient satisfaction, compliance, and health outcomes; information sharing could be greatly improved; and doctors and patients can be trained to improve information sharing, resulting in improved outcomes. A review of attribution and decision-making theory and the empirical literature on doctor-patient communication suggests a number of techniques that could be usefully incorporated into the management of each patient. These include: (1) encouraging patients to write down their concerns before each visit; (2) addressing each concern specifically, however briefly; (3) asking patients what they think has caused their problems; (4) tailoring treatments to patients' goals and preferences as possible; (5) explaining the purpose, dosage, common side-effects and inconveniences, and how to judge the efficacy of each treatment, including length of trial; (6) checking patients' understanding; (7) anticipating problems in compliance with treatment plans, and discussing methods to cope with common problems; (8) writing down the diagnosis and treatment plan to help patients remember; (9) giving out written materials that are now widely available; (10) reinforcing patients' confidence in their ability to manage their regimen; (11) using ancillary personnel in patient education; and (12) referring patients to organized programmes in the community.

Advances in patient education in rheumatic disease

Education of patients with arthritis began with an emphasis on conveying knowledge, grew to include behaviour change, compliance, and more general coping and management of disease and then progressed to consider physical and psychosocial health outcomes. Research continues in all these areas. Control, in many forms (locus of control, self perceived efficacy, learned helplessness), is now suggested to be a central mediating variable. Evaluation of programmes is moving away from programme v usual care towards comparison of alternative methods of delivery and matching of method to learner. The first generation of researchers in arthritis education tended to be care givers with little formal education in behavioural sciences and evaluation methodology; the programmes they designed were often empirically based. The current generation, nurtured in large part by funds from the Arthritis Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, is better trained in designing programmes grounded in behavioural sciences and educational theory. In the long run, collaborations with care givers and patients will considerably strengthen the effectiveness of education programmes for patients. A variety of educational strategies have been shown to change the knowledge, behaviour, and health of patients with arthritis for the better. Many methods seem to work, so long as the programme is planned, has a goal, and is accountable. There is much work still to be done to teach care givers to be better teachers, and patients to be better managers of their diseases, in concert with their doctors, and to focus on high risk groups. Although most work has been done with patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis, many of these findings can and should be safely generalised to less studied rheumatic diseases. Finally, we need to consider the patient first as a person, and to provide education through all avenues, not just the medical care system.