New directions for patient-centred care in scleroderma: the Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN).

Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Clinical and experimental rheumatology (Impact Factor: 2.97). 12/2011; 30(2 Suppl 71):S23-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a chronic multisystem autoimmune disorder characterised by thickening and fibrosis of the skin and by the involvement of internal organs such as the lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, and heart. Because there is no cure, feasibly-implemented and easily accessible evidence-based interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are needed. Due to a lack of evidence, however, specific recommendations have not been made regarding non-pharmacological interventions (e.g. behavioural/psychological, educational, physical/occupational therapy) to improve HRQoL in SSc. The Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN) was recently organised to address this gap. SPIN is comprised of patient representatives, clinicians, and researchers from Canada, the USA, and Europe. The goal of SPIN, as described in this article, is to develop, test, and disseminate a set of accessible interventions designed to complement standard care in order to improve HRQoL outcomes in SSc.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale scores in English- and French-speaking Canadian systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients are commonly pooled in analyses, but no studies have evaluated the metric equivalence of the English and French CES-D. The study objective was to examine the metric equivalence of the CES-D in English- and French-speaking SSc patients. Methods The CES-D was completed by 1007 English-speaking and 248 French-speaking patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group Registry. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to assess the factor structure in both samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess differential item functioning (DIF). Results A two-factor model (Positive and Negative affect) showed excellent fit in both samples. Statistically significant, but small-magnitude, DIF was found for 3 of 20 CES-D items, including items 3 (Blues), 10 (Fearful), and 11 (Sleep). Prior to accounting for DIF, French-speaking patients had 0.08 of a standard deviation (SD) lower latent scores for the Positive factor (95% confidence interval [CI]−0.25 to 0.08) and 0.09 SD higher scores (95% CI−0.07 to 0.24) for the Negative factor than English-speaking patients. After DIF correction, there was no change on the Positive factor and a non-significant increase of 0.04 SD on the Negative factor for French-speaking patients (difference = 0.13 SD, 95% CI−0.03 to 0.28). Conclusions The English and French versions of the CES-D, despite minor DIF on several items, are substantively equivalent and can be used in studies that combine data from English- and French-speaking Canadian SSc patients.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e102897. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0102897 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tissue-preserving focal therapies, such as brachytherapy, cryotherapy, high-intensity focused ultrasound and photodynamic therapy, aim to target individual cancer lesions rather than the whole prostate. These treatments have emerged as potential interventions for localized prostate cancer to reduce treatment-related adverse-effects associated with whole-gland treatments, such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy. In this article, the Prostate Cancer RCT Consensus Group propose that a novel cohort-embedded randomized controlled trial (RCT) would provide a means to study men with clinically significant localized disease, which we defined on the basis of PSA level (≤15 ng/ml or ≤20 ng/ml), Gleason grade (Gleason pattern ≤4 + 4 or ≤4 + 3) and stage (≤cT2cN0M0). This RCT should recruit men who stand to benefit from treatment, with the control arm being whole-gland surgery or radiotherapy. Composite outcomes measuring rates of local and systemic salvage therapies at 3-5 years might best constitute the basis of the primary outcome on which to change practice.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 04/2014; 11(8). DOI:10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.44 · 15.70 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy- Fatigue (FACIT-F) is commonly used to assess fatigue in rheumatic diseases, and has shown to discriminate better across levels of the fatigue spectrum than other commonly used measures. The aim of this study was to assess the cross-language measurement equivalence of the English, French, and Dutch versions of the FACIT-F in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients. The FACIT-F was completed by 871 English-speaking Canadian, 238 French-speaking Canadian and 230 Dutch SSc patients. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the factor structure in the three samples. The Multiple-Indicator Multiple-Cause (MIMIC) model was utilized to assess differential item functioning (DIF), comparing English versus French and versus Dutch patient responses separately. A unidimensional factor model showed good fit in all samples. Comparing French versus English patients, statistically significant, but small-magnitude DIF was found for 3 of 13 items. French patients had 0.04 of a standard deviation (SD) lower latent fatigue scores than English patients and there was an increase of only 0.03 SD after accounting for DIF. For the Dutch versus English comparison, 4 items showed small, but statistically significant, DIF. Dutch patients had 0.20 SD lower latent fatigue scores than English patients. After correcting for DIF, there was a reduction of 0.16 SD in this difference. There was statistically significant DIF in several items, but the overall effect on fatigue scores was minimal. English, French and Dutch versions of the FACIT-F can be reasonably treated as having equivalent scoring metrics.
    PLoS ONE 03/2014; 9(3):e91979. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0091979 · 3.53 Impact Factor


Available from
May 20, 2014