Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

PROMs in inflammatory arthritis: moving from static to dynamic

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There are several advantages in using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in standard clinical practice, particularly if a questionnaire is distributed to each patient at each visit as a standard in the infrastructure usual care. The patients, being the most knowledgeable persons concerning their pain and global estimate, do most of the work by completing a questionnaire. Completion of the questionnaire helps the patients prepare for their visit as well as improving doctor–patient communication. Recently, the role of PROMs has expanded from the static phase of capturing and measuring outcomes at a single point of time to a more dynamic role. This dynamic role is aiming at driving improvement not only in the quality of inflammatory arthritis care but also in the patients' reported experience. Therefore, in addition to its value in tailoring treatment targets adapted to the patient's needs, PROMs also have the potential of modifying the disease impact through improving the patients' adherence to therapy and allowing the patients to monitor the changes in their condition. Though more attention has been given to the use of PROMs in routine clinical care, little was published regarding what could be done with the plethora of data gained from PROMs and how dynamic it can be enhancing the “patient-centered care” approach and improving patients' experience. This article highlights the value of adopting PROMs for arthritic patients in standard clinical practice and its impact on long-term patients' management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Department of Health (2009) Guidance on the routine collection of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for the NHS in England 2009/10. Department of Health. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_092647. Accessed 13 Nov 2012

  2. Pincus T, Yazici Y, Sokka T (2007) Quantitative measures of rheumatic diseases for clinical research versus standard clinical care: differences, advantages and limitations. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 21:601–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kirwan J, Heiberg T, Hewlett S et al (2003) Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6. J Rheumatol 30:868–872

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aletaha D, Machold KP, Nell VPK, Smolen JS (2006) The perception of rheumatoid arthritis core set measures by rheumatologists. Results of a survey. Rheumatol (Oxford) 45:1133–1139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Youssef SS, Palmer D (2010) Incorporating patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: development and validation of a questionnaire for inflammatory arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 28(5):734–744

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deyo RA, Patrick DL (1989) Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Med Care 27:S254–S268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fung C, Hays RD (2008) Prospects and challenges in using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Qual Life Res 17:1297–1302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Valderas JM, Alonso J, Guyatt GH (2008) Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving from clinical trials into clinical practice. Med J Aust 189(2):93–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ (2009) Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Qual Life Res 18:99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Palmer D, El Gaafary M, El MY (2007) Improving patient care: measurement of outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Nurs 16:1010–1015

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. El Miedany Y, Youssef S, Mehanna AN, El GM (2008) Development of a scoring system for assessment of outcome of early undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis. Joint Bone Spine 75(2):155–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pincus T, Callahan LF, Sale WG, Brooks AL, Payne LE, Vaughn WK (1984) Severe functional declines, work disability, and increased mortality in seventy-five rheumatoid arthritis patients studied over nine years. Arthritis Rheum 27(8):864–872

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Singh J, Furst D, Bharatacr A et al (2012) Update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology Recommendations for the Use of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Biologic Agents in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 64(5):625–639

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Prevoo ML, van’t Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van De Putte LB, van Riel PL (1995) Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 38:44–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Aletaha D, Smolen J (2005) The simplified disease activity index (SDAI) and the clinical disease activity index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23(suppl 39):S100–S108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hewlett S (2003) Patients and clinicians have different perspectives on outcomes in arthritis. J Rheumatol 30:877–879

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hewlett S, Carr M, Ryan S, Kirwan J, Richards P, Carr A et al (2005) Outcomes generated by patients with rheumatoid arthritis: how important are they? Musculoskeletal Care 3:131–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanderson T, Kirwan J (2009) Patient-reported outcomes for arthritis: time to focus on personal life impact measures? Arthritis Care & Res 61(1):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. El Miedany Y, Palmer D, El Gaafary M (2009) Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis: patient self-reported joint tenderness is reliable and responsive to change in disease activity. Rheumatol (Oxford) 48(Suppl 1):i141

    Google Scholar 

  20. Michaud K, Wolfe F (2007) Comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 21(5):885–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Youssef S, Palmer D (2009) Answering the difficult question: how to identify rheumatoid arthritis patients at higher risk of cardiovascular disease in the standard practice? Ann Rheum Dis 68(SIII):554

    Google Scholar 

  22. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Palmer D (2012) Assessment of the utility of visual feedback in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis patients: a pilot study. Rheumatol Int 32(10):3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Grigor C, Capell H, Stirling A et al (2004) Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364:263–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Verstappen SMM, Jacobs JWG, van der Veen MJ et al (2007) Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial). Ann Rheum Dis 66:1443–1449

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Soubrier M, Lukas C, Sibilia J et al (2011) Disease activity score-driven therapy versus routine care in patients with recent-onset active rheumatoid arthritis: data from the GUEPARD trial and ESPOIR cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 70:611–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Möttönen T, Hannonen P, Leirisalorepo M et al (1999) Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial. FINRACo trial group. Lancet 353:1568–1573

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Puolakka K, Kautiainen H, Möttönen T et al (2005) Early suppression of disease activity is essential for maintenance of work capacity in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: five-year experience from the FIN-RACo trial. Arthritis Rheum 52:36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hetland ML, Stengaard-Pedersen K, Junker P et al (2008) Aggressive combination therapy with intra-articular glucocorticoid injections and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis: second-year clinical and radiographic results from the CIMESTRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 67:815–822

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hetland ML, Ostergaard M, Ejbjerg B et al (2012) Short- and long-term efficacy of intra-articular injections with betamethasone as part of a treat-to-target strategy in early rheumatoid arthritis: impact of joint area, repeated injections, MRI findings, anti-CCP, IgM-RF and CRP. Ann Rheum Dis 71:851–856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Goekoop-Ruiterman YPM, de Vriesbouwstra JK, Allaart CF et al (2007) Comparison of treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 146:406–415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Goekoop-Ruiterman YPM, de Vriesbouwstra JK, Allaart CF et al (2005) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 52:3381–3390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Goekoop-Ruiterman YP, De Vries-Bouwstra JK, Kerstens PJ et al (2010) DAS-driven therapy versus routine care in patients with recent-onset active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 69:65–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schipper LG, Vermeer M, Kuper HH et al (2012) A tight control treatment strategy aiming for remission in early rheumatoid arthritis is more effective than usual care treatment in daily clinical practice: a study of two cohorts in the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring registry. Ann Rheum Dis 71:845–850

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Castrejón I, Pincus T (2012) Patient self-report outcomes to guide a treat-to-target strategy in clinical trials and usual clinical care of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 30(suppl 73):S50–S55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Youssef S, Palmer D (2011) US as an outcome measure in the management of inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. Arthritis Rheum 63(10):S319

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rimer B, Jones WL, Keintz MK, Catalono RB, Engstrom PF (1984) Informed consent: a crucial step in cancer patient education. Health Educ Q 10(suppl):30–42

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heneghan K, Sachdeva A, McAninch J (2009) Transformation to a system that supports full patient participation. Bul Am Coll Surg 91(6):12–20

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hardware B, Lacey E, Shewan J (2004) Towards the development of a tool to assess educational needs in patients with arthritis. Clin Eff Nurs 8:111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2012) The management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. Clinical guideline 79. http://tiny.cc/lbah0 (accessed 14 November 2012)

  40. Smolen J, Landewé R, Breedveld F et al (2010) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. doi:10.1136/ard.2009.126532

    Google Scholar 

  41. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, El Arousy N, Ahmed I, Youssef S, Palmer D (2012) Arthritis education: the integration of patient-reported outcome measures and patient self-management. Clin Exp Rheumatol 30(6):899–904

    Google Scholar 

  42. Palmer D, El Miedany Y (2012) PROMs: a novel approach to arthritis self-management. Br J Nurs 13; 21(10):601–605

    Google Scholar 

  43. American College of Physicians (2008) Information on cost-effectiveness: an essential product of a national comparative effectiveness program. Ann Intern Med 148:956–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rawlins MD, Culyer AJ (2004) National Institute for Clinical Excellence and its value judgments. Br Med J 329:224–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. British Thoracic Society (2010) Jargon buster. British Thoracic Society reports 2010; 2(1). http://www.impressresp.com/index.php?export=pdf&no_html=1&option=com_glossary&task=list&letter=P&Itemid=2. Accessed 13 Nov 2012

  46. El Miedany Y, El Gaafary M, Youssef S, Palmer D (2011) Patient reported outcome measures: its impact on disease activity and adherence to therapy in inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 63(S10):1753

    Google Scholar 

  47. Bloomfield L (2012) Improving quality of care and the patient experience: Commissioning for Quality in Rheumatoid Arthritis (CQRA). Patient Feedback Challenge, NHS Patient Feedback Challenge Projects. http://pfchallenge.clearvale.com/pg/cv_blog/content/view/6557/network. Accessed 13 Nov 2012

  48. Whelan P, Reddy L, Andrews T (2011) Patient satisfaction rating scales v. patient-related outcome and experience measures. Psychiatrist 35:32–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, Park SB, Hadden S, Burns A (1998) Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS). Research and development. Br J Psychiatry 172:11–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yasser El Miedany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

El Miedany, Y. PROMs in inflammatory arthritis: moving from static to dynamic. Clin Rheumatol 32, 735–742 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2228-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2228-0

Keywords

Navigation