Pedro Santos-Moreno, Gabriel-Santiago Rodríguez-Vargas, Fernando Rodríguez-Florido, Jaime-Andrés Rubio-Rubio, Pedro A Rodríguez, Adriana Rojas-Villarraga
{"title":"Comparison and Influence of a Multicomponent Educational Program on the Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Group of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.","authors":"Pedro Santos-Moreno, Gabriel-Santiago Rodríguez-Vargas, Fernando Rodríguez-Florido, Jaime-Andrés Rubio-Rubio, Pedro A Rodríguez, Adriana Rojas-Villarraga","doi":"10.1097/RHU.0000000000002105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that affects different areas of the patient's body. Patient education and health literacy is essential for them to participate actively in follow-up.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess differences between clinimetric measurements done by a medical team and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in RA and understand the impact of patient education strategies in order to identify differences between RA assessment methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a longitudinal cohort study. It included adult patients with RA and access to digital tools. These were divided into 3 groups by type of education. Group 1 included patients who participated in a multicomponent RA educational program. Group 2 did not have this multicomponent RA education. Group 3 did not receive any education. The 3 groups performed PROMs. Disease activity scales, functional class, and quality of life were measured. Univariate and bivariate analysis (χ 2 and Wilcoxon for paired data) were done.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight patients were included in group 1, 26 in group 2, and 37 in group 3. All were women. In group 1, there were no significant differences in clinimetrics between the medical team and patient's PROMs except for fatigue. In group 2 and group 3, significant differences were found. The RAPID3 and PAS variables did not show significant differences when analyzed by intervention subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows no differences between clinimetrics/PROMs for patients with a high-level education on RA and physicians. On the other hand, when patient did not have any RA education, the clinimetric results differed from physician measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000002105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that affects different areas of the patient's body. Patient education and health literacy is essential for them to participate actively in follow-up.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess differences between clinimetric measurements done by a medical team and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in RA and understand the impact of patient education strategies in order to identify differences between RA assessment methods.
Methods: This is a longitudinal cohort study. It included adult patients with RA and access to digital tools. These were divided into 3 groups by type of education. Group 1 included patients who participated in a multicomponent RA educational program. Group 2 did not have this multicomponent RA education. Group 3 did not receive any education. The 3 groups performed PROMs. Disease activity scales, functional class, and quality of life were measured. Univariate and bivariate analysis (χ 2 and Wilcoxon for paired data) were done.
Results: Twenty-eight patients were included in group 1, 26 in group 2, and 37 in group 3. All were women. In group 1, there were no significant differences in clinimetrics between the medical team and patient's PROMs except for fatigue. In group 2 and group 3, significant differences were found. The RAPID3 and PAS variables did not show significant differences when analyzed by intervention subgroups.
Conclusions: This study shows no differences between clinimetrics/PROMs for patients with a high-level education on RA and physicians. On the other hand, when patient did not have any RA education, the clinimetric results differed from physician measurement.
背景:类风湿性关节炎(RA)是一种慢性疾病,会影响患者身体的不同部位。患者教育和健康知识对他们积极参与后续治疗至关重要:本研究旨在评估医疗团队进行的临床测量与患者报告的 RA 结果测量(PROMs)之间的差异,并了解患者教育策略的影响,以确定 RA 评估方法之间的差异:这是一项纵向队列研究。方法:这是一项纵向队列研究,研究对象包括可使用数字工具的成年 RA 患者。这些患者按教育类型分为 3 组。第一组包括参加了多成分 RA 教育计划的患者。第 2 组没有接受这种多成分 RA 教育。第三组未接受任何教育。这 3 组都进行了 PROMs 分析。对疾病活动量表、功能分级和生活质量进行了测量。进行了单变量和双变量分析(χ2和配对数据的Wilcoxon):第一组有 28 名患者,第二组有 26 名患者,第三组有 37 名患者。所有患者均为女性。在第一组中,除疲劳感外,医疗团队与患者的 PROMs 在临床指标上无明显差异。而在第 2 组和第 3 组中,则发现了明显的差异。按干预分组进行分析时,RAPID3 和 PAS 变量未显示出显著差异:本研究表明,接受过高级 RA 教育的患者和医生在临床指标/PROMs 方面没有差异。另一方面,当患者没有接受过任何 RA 教育时,临床测量结果与医生的测量结果存在差异。