[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We examined patients' experiences regarding bone mineral density (BMD) testing and bone health treatment after being screened through Ontario's Fracture Clinic Screening Program. Provider-level barriers to testing and treatment appeared to be as significant as patient-level barriers and potentially had more of an impact on treatment than on testing.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To examine messages perceived by members of an osteoporosis (OP) patient group from various healthcare providers regarding bone health. We conducted a phenomenological (qualitative) study in members of an OP patient group who resided in Canada, had sustained a fragility fracture at 50+ years old, and were not taking antiresorptive medication at the time of that fracture. Participants were interviewed for approximately 1 h by telephone and responded to questions about visits to healthcare providers for their bone health and what was discussed during those visits. We analyzed the data guided by Giorgi's methodology. We interviewed 28 members (2 males, 26 females; 78 % response rate), aged 51-89 years old. Most participants perceived that their specialist was more interested than their primary care physician in bone health and took the time to discuss issues with them. Participants perceived very few messages from the fracture clinic and other providers. We found many instances where perceived messages within and across various healthcare providers were inconsistent, suggesting there is a need to raise awareness of bone health management guidelines to providers who treat fracture patients.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to examine the extent of workplace activity limitations among persons with lupus and to identify factors associated with activity limitations among those employed.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This article is an overview of the status of postfracture secondary prevention programs. The concept of fracture risk, the inclusion of fracture risk in clinical practice guidelines for osteoporosis, and how fracture risk has contributed to the development of postfracture secondary prevention programs are described. The scope of postfracture secondary prevention programs, the gaps in care that persist despite these initiatives, and the potential reasons for these gaps are also described. Recommendations for future research in the area of postfracture secondary prevention are provided.
Clinics in geriatric medicine. 05/2014; 30(2):317-332.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The "Discrimination" part of the OMERACT Filter asks whether a measure discriminates between situations that are of interest. "Feasibility" in the OMERACT Filter encompasses the practical considerations of using an instrument, including its ease of use, time to complete, monetary costs, and interpretability of the question(s) included in the instrument. Both the Discrimination and Reliability parts of the filter have been helpful but were agreed on primarily by consensus of OMERACT participants rather than through explicit evidence-based guidelines. In Filter 2.0 we wanted to improve this definition and provide specific guidance and advice to participants.
The Journal of Rheumatology 04/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter requires that criteria be met to demonstrate that the outcome instrument meets the criteria for content, face, and construct validity.
Discussion groups critically reviewed a variety of ways in which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with the Truth component of the Filter and what issues remained to be resolved.
The case studies showed that there is broad agreement on criteria for meeting the Truth criteria through demonstration of content, face, and construct validity; however, several issues were identified that the Filter Working Group will need to address.
These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on how Truth will be assessed for the proposed Filter 2.0 framework, for instruments to be endorsed by OMERACT.
The Journal of Rheumatology 04/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides guidelines for the development and validation of outcome measures for use in clinical research. The "Truth" section of the OMERACT Filter presupposes an explicit framework for identifying the relevant core outcomes that are universal to all studies of the effects of intervention effects. There is no published outline for instrument choice or development that is aimed at measuring outcome, was derived from broad consensus over its underlying philosophy, or includes a structured and documented critique. Therefore, a new proposal for defining core areas of measurement ("Filter 2.0 Core Areas of Measurement") was presented at OMERACT 11 to explore areas of consensus and to consider whether already endorsed core outcome sets fit into this newly proposed framework.
Discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.
Although there was broad acceptance of the framework in general, several important areas of construction, presentation, and clarity of the framework were questioned. The discussion groups and subsequent feedback highlighted 20 such issues.
These issues will require resolution to reach consensus on accepting the proposed Filter 2.0 framework of Core Areas as the basis for the selection of Core Outcome Domains and hence appropriate Core Outcome Sets for clinical trials.
The Journal of Rheumatology 03/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter provides a framework for the validation of outcome measures for use in rheumatology clinical research. However, imaging and biochemical measures may face additional validation challenges because of their technical nature. The Imaging and Soluble Biomarker Session at OMERACT 11 aimed to provide a guide for the iterative development of an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument so it can be used in therapeutic assessment.
A hierarchical structure was proposed, reflecting 3 dimensions needed for validating an imaging or biochemical measurement instrument: outcome domain(s), study setting, and performance of the instrument. Movement along the axes in any dimension reflects increasing validation. For a given test instrument, the 3-axis structure assesses the extent to which the instrument is a validated measure for the chosen domain, whether it assesses a patient-centered or disease-centered variable, and whether its technical performance is adequate in the context of its application. Some currently used imaging and soluble biomarkers for rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and knee osteoarthritis were then evaluated using the original OMERACT Filter and the newly proposed structure. Breakout groups critically reviewed the extent to which the candidate biomarkers complied with the proposed stepwise approach, as a way of examining the utility of the proposed 3-dimensional structure.
Although there was a broad acceptance of the value of the proposed structure in general, some areas for improvement were suggested including clarification of criteria for achieving a certain level of validation and how to deal with extension of the structure to areas beyond clinical trials.
General support was obtained for a proposed tri-axis structure to assess validation of imaging and soluble biomarkers; nevertheless, additional work is required to better evaluate its place within the OMERACT Filter 2.0.
The Journal of Rheumatology 03/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: At a previous Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) meeting, participants reflected on the underlying methods of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument development. The participants requested proposals for more explicit instrument development protocols that would contribute to an enhanced version of the "Truth" statement in the OMERACT Filter, a widely used guide for outcome validation. In the present OMERACT session, we explored to what extent these new Filter 2.0 proposals were practicable, feasible, and already being applied.
Following overview presentations, discussion groups critically reviewed the extent to which case studies of current OMERACT Working Groups complied with or negated the proposed PRO development framework, whether these observations had a more general application, and what issues remained to be resolved.
Several aspects of PRO development were recognized as particularly important, and the need to directly involve patients at every stage of an iterative PRO development program was endorsed. This included recognition that patients contribute as partners in the research and not merely as subjects. Correct communication of concepts with the words used in questionnaires was central to their performance as measuring instruments, and ensuring this understanding crossed cultural and linguistic boundaries was important in international studies or comparisons.
Participants recognized, endorsed, and were generally already putting into practice the principles of PRO development presented in the plenary session. Further work is needed on some existing instruments and on establishing widespread good practice for working in close collaboration with patients.
The Journal of Rheumatology 03/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets of outcome measures for trials of many rheumatologic conditions, but its expanding scope called for clarification and updating of its underlying conceptual framework and working process. To develop a core set of what we propose to call outcome measurement instruments, consensus must be reached both on what to measure and how to measure. This article deals with the first part: a framework necessary to ensure comprehensiveness of the domains chosen for measurement. We formulated a conceptual framework of core measurement areas in clinical trials, for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.
We formulated a framework and definitions of key concepts adapted from the literature, and followed an iterative consensus process (small group processes and an Internet-based survey) of those involved including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology.
The draft framework comprises 4 core "areas": death, life impact (all aspects of how a patient feels or functions), resource use (monetary and other costs of the health condition and interventions), and pathophysiologic manifestations (disease-specific clinical and psychological signs, biomarkers, and potential surrogate outcome measures necessary to assess specific effects). The survey responses (262 of 2293, response rate 11%) indicated broad agreement with the draft framework and the proposed definitions of key concepts, including understandability and feasibility. A total of 283 comments were processed.
In an iterative process, we have developed a generic framework for outcome measurement and working definitions of key concepts ready for discussion at the OMERACT 11 conference.
The Journal of Rheumatology 03/2014; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Lack of standardization of outcome measures limits the usefulness of clinical trial evidence to inform health care decisions. This can be addressed by agreeing on a minimum core set of outcome measures per health condition, containing measures relevant to patients and decision makers. Since 1992, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) consensus initiative has successfully developed core sets for many rheumatologic conditions, actively involving patients since 2002. Its expanding scope required an explicit formulation of its underlying conceptual framework and process.
Literature searches and iterative consensus process (surveys and group meetings) of stakeholders including patients, health professionals, and methodologists within and outside rheumatology.
To comprehensively sample patient-centered and intervention-specific outcomes, a framework emerged that comprises three core “Areas,” namely Death, Life Impact, and Pathophysiological Manifestations; and one strongly recommended Resource Use. Through literature review and consensus process, core set development for any specific health condition starts by identifying at least one core “Domain” within each of the Areas to formulate the “Core Domain Set.” Next, at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core Domain is identified to formulate a “Core Outcome Measurement Set.” Each instrument must prove to be truthful (valid), discriminative, and feasible. In 2012, 96% of the voting participants (n = 125) at the OMERACT 11 consensus conference endorsed this model and process.
The OMERACT Filter 2.0 explicitly describes a comprehensive conceptual framework and a recommended process to develop core outcome measurement sets for rheumatology likely to be useful as a template in other areas of health care.
Journal of clinical epidemiology 01/2014; · 5.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose To examine men and women's perceptions of inter-role balance/imbalance in work, arthritis, and personal roles and its association with demographic, health and employment factors, including job stress, career satisfaction, job disruptions, absenteeism and perceived productivity losses. Methods Participants were employed, aged ≥40 years and diagnosed with osteoarthritis or inflammatory arthritis. They were recruited through community advertising and rheumatology clinics in two Canadian provinces. Respondents completed a 35-45 min telephone interview and a 20-min self-administered questionnaire assessing role perceptions [(arthritis negatively impacts work (A → W); work/personal life negatively impact arthritis (W/P → A); work as a positive role (W +))], demographic, health and work context information. Analyses included exploratory factor analysis and multivariate regressions. Results Findings revealed similarities between men (n = 104) and women (n = 248) in health, work and role perceptions, although women reported more benefits of working with arthritis (W+) than men. Some gender differences were found in factors associated with inter-role perceptions highlighting the importance of children, fatigue, unpredictable work hours, job control, and workplace activity limitations. Role perceptions were associated with work outcomes but only one perception, W/P → A, interacted with gender. Among men, greater perceptions that work and personal demands interfered with managing arthritis were associated with more job disruptions. Conclusions This study revealed negative and positive inter-role perceptions related to working with a chronic illness and associations with work outcomes. It highlights potentially modifiable factors that could assess risk and inform interventions to improve role balance and working experiences.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 12/2013; · 2.80 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To determine the proportion of patients with fragility fractures who can be expected to have low bone mineral density (BMD) at the time of fracture and to assist FPs in deciding whether to refer patients for BMD testing.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest available dates through September 2009.
English-language articles reporting BMD test results of patients with fragility fractures who were managed in an orthopedic environment (eg, fracture clinic, emergency management by orthopedic surgeons, inpatients) were eligible for review. While the orthopedic environment has been identified as an ideal point for case finding, FPs are often responsible for investigation and treatment. Factors that potentially influenced BMD test results (eg, selection of fracture types, exclusion criteria) were identified. Studies with 2 or more selection factors of potential influence were flagged, and rates of low BMD were calculated including and excluding these studies.
The distribution of the proportion of persons with low BMD was summarized across studies using descriptive statistics. We calculated lower boundaries on this distribution, using standard statistical thresholds, to determine a lower threshold of the expected rate of low BMD.
Family physicians evaluating patients with fragility fractures can expect that at least two-thirds of patients with fragility fractures who are older than 50 years of age will have low BMD (T score ≤ -1.0). With this a priori expectation, FPs might more readily conduct a fracture risk assessment and pursue warranted fracture risk reduction strategies following fragility fracture.
Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 12/2013; 59(12):e564-e571. · 1.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To estimate the contribution of preexisting chronic conditions on age differences in health care expenditures for the management of work-related musculoskeletal injuries in British Columbia.
A secondary analysis of workers' compensation claims submitted over the 5-year period between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006 (N=55,827 claims among men and 32,141 claims among women). Path models examined the relationships between age and health care expenditures, and the extent to which age differences in health care expenditures were mediated by preexisting chronic conditions. Models were adjusted for individual, injury, occupational, and industrial covariates.
The relationship between age and health care expenditures differed for men and women, with a stronger age gradient observed among men. Preexisting osteoarthritis and coronary heart disease were associated with elevated health care expenditures among men and women. Diabetes was associated with elevated health care expenditures among men only, and depression was associated with elevated health care expenditures among women only. The percentage of the age effect on health care expenditures that was mediated through preexisting chronic conditions increased from 12.4% among 25-34-year-old men (compared with 15-24 y) to 26.6% among 55+-year-old men; and 14.6% among 25-34-year-old women to 35.9% among women 55 and older.
The results of this study demonstrate that differences in preexisting chronic conditions have an impact on the relationship between older age and greater health care expenditures after a work-related musculoskeletal injury. The differing prevalence of preexisting osteoarthritis, coronary heart disease, and to a lesser extent diabetes (among men) and depression (among women) across age groups explain a nontrivial proportion of the age effect in health care expenditures after injury. However, approximately two thirds or more of the age effect in health care expenditures remains unexplained.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study aims to examine the extent to which a greater prevalence of pre-existing chronic conditions among older workers explains why older age is associated with longer duration of sickness absence (SA) following a musculoskeletal work-related injury in British Columbia.
A secondary analysis of workers' compensation claims in British Columbia over three time periods (1997-1998; 2001-2002, and 2005-2006), the study comprised 102 997 and 53 882 claims among men and women, respectively. Path models examined the relationships between age and days of absence and the relative contribution of eight different pre-existing chronic conditions (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, thyroid conditions, hearing problems, and depression) to this relationship. Models were adjusted for individual, injury, occupational, and industrial covariates.
The relationship between age and length of SA was stronger for men than women. A statistically significant indirect effect was present between older age, diabetes, and longer days of SA among both men and women. Indirect effects between age and days of SA were also present through osteoarthritis, among men but not women, and coronary heart disease, among women but not men. Depression was associated with longer duration of SA but was most prevalent among middle-aged claimants. Approximately 70-78% of the effect of age on days of SA remained unexplained after accounting for pre-existing conditions.
Pre-existing chronic conditions, specifically diabetes, osteoarthritis and coronary heart disease, represent important factors that explain why older age is associated with more days of SA following a musculoskeletal injury. Given the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions among labor market participants (and subsequently injured workers) moderate reductions in age differences in SA could be gained by better understanding the mechanisms linking these conditions to longer durations of SA.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 10/2013; · 3.10 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT 11 Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) - an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group.
The Journal of Rheumatology 10/2013; · 3.26 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To assess the contribution of back-translation and expert committee to the content and psychometric properties of a translated multidimensional questionnaire.
Recommendations for questionnaire translation include back-translation and expert committee, but their contribution to measurement properties is unknown. Four English to French translations of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire were generated with and without committee or back-translation. Face validity, acceptability, and structural properties were compared after random assignment to people with rheumatoid arthritis (N = 1,168), chronic renal failure (N = 2,368), and diabetes (N = 538). For face validity, 15 bilingual people compared translations quality with the original. Psychometric properties were examined using confirmatory factor analysis (metric and scalar invariance) and item response theory.
Qualitatively, there were five types of translation errors: style, intensity, frequency/time frame, breadth, and meaning. Bilingual assessors ranked best the translations with committee (P = 0.0026). All translations had good structural properties (root mean square error of approximation <0.05; comparative fit index [CFI], ≥0.899; and Tucker-Lewis index, ≥0.889). Full measurement invariance was observed between translations (ΔCFI ≤ 0.01) with metric invariance between translations and original (lowest ΔCFI = 0.022 between fully constrained models and models with free intercepts). Item characteristic curve analyses revealed no significant differences.
This is the first experimental evidence that back-translation has moderate impact, whereas expert committee helps to ensure accurate content.
Journal of clinical epidemiology 09/2013; · 5.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The prevalence of hip-specific outcome measures in randomized trials reflects what directs our outcome assessment following a hip fracture. The present study provides an overview on the most commonly-used hip-specific outcome instruments used for postoperative assessment of hip fracture with respect to their covered contents. This can facilitate the selection of appropriate items for specific purposes in clinical as well as research settings.
We used the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model to distinguish concepts within the instrument. All items from the questionnaires were categorized into one of three categories using the ICF linking rules for a standardized approach. The hip-specific composites measures were also compared to other types of prevalent measures: generic and patient-based instruments.
All of the items in the instruments could be mapped to the ICF. We report the highest frequency of ICF activity and participation (71 %) within the Harris hip score (HHS) which is similar to the frequency of ICF content found in the generic measures (82 %). Hip-specific composites focused mostly on walking and moving long and short distances, while in patient-reported measures there was a concentration on the concept of sensation of pain and pain in body parts.
The prevalent use of the HHS, over the other hip-specific instruments, could be attributed to its likeness in concept to other generic measures. The dominance of the ICF category of activity and participation reflects what is important to clinicians treating a hip fracture. Composite scores remain problematic as they cut across different ICF concepts. As long as the popularity of composite scoring systems continues, an overall score may not represent the true patient preferences and concerns in clinical trials. Future studies could apply the results from this study for the creation of an ICF category-based item banking or investigators could operationalize the ICF categories within these candidate measures for specific interventions.
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 08/2013; · 1.36 Impact Factor