OBJECTIVE: Arthritis gloves are frequently prescribed to people with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis (UIA) or RA to help reduce hand pain and improve function. Nested within a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of arthritis gloves (Isotoner gloves vs loose-fitting placebo gloves) in people with RA and UIA, this qualitative study aimed to explore participants' views on the impact of wearing arthritis gloves on their hand pain and function.
METHODS: Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants following 12 weeks of glove wearing. Participants and the interviewer were blinded to the treatment allocation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Participants (intervention: n = 10; control: n = 9) recruited from 13 National Health Service hospital sites in the UK participated in the interviews. Two main themes, with sub-themes, were elicited from the data: mechanisms determining glove use: 'As soon as your joints get a bit warmer, the pain actually eases' (thermal qualities; glove use in daily activities; glove use during sleep); and ambivalence about benefits of arthritis gloves: 'I suppose a normal pair of gloves would do the same sort of thing?' (are they a help or hindrance?; aesthetic appeal; future use of gloves).
CONCLUSION: Participants had ambivalent views on the impact of both the intervention and the loose-fitting placebo gloves on their hand pain and function, identifying warmth as the main benefit. Ordinary mid-finger-length gloves widely accessible from high street suppliers could deliver warmth and provide the perceived benefits to hand pain and function. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN25892131; registered 5 September 2016 : retrospectively registered.
Background and purpose: Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QOL) is an important patient-reported domain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The uptake of multidisciplinary team (MDT) care in RA is generally low, due to initial high demand for resources. We hypothesised that whilst pharmacological treatments are effective in controlling disease activity, a multipronged intervention in an MDT may have a positive impact on HR-QOL. METHODS: This was a single-centre randomized parallel group, single-blind controlled trial of MDT vs. usual care in an established RA clinic. Data were collected through face-to-face questionnaires, medical records review, and joint counts by a blinded assessor at 0, 3 and 6 months. Adult RA patients were randomly assigned in a single visit to a 6-member MDT (rheumatologist, nurse, social worker, physiotherapist, occupational therapist, and podiatrist) or usual care. MDT providers prescribed medications and counselled patients on managing flares, medication adherence, coping, joint protection, exercise, footwear. The primary outcome was minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in HR-QOL (increase in European QOL-5-Dimension-3-Level, EQ-5D-3L by 0.1) at six months. RESULTS: 140 patients (86.3% female, 53.4% Chinese, median (IQR) age 56.6 (46.7, 62.4) years); 70 were randomized to each arm. Median (IQR) disease duration was 5.5 (2.4, 11.0) years and disease activity in 28 joints (DAS28) was 2.87 (2.08, 3.66). 123 patients completed the study. Twenty-six (40.6%) MDT vs. 23 (34.3%) usual care patients achieved an MCID in EQ-5D-3L, OR 1.3 (0.6, 2.7). In multivariable logistic regression, baseline EQ-5D-3L was the only predictor of achieving MCID. There was more disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation in MDT (34.4% vs. 19.4%). Patients with high disease activity were more likely to achieve MCID in the MDT arm. CONCLUSIONS: A single visit by stable patients with low disease activity to an MDT failed to achieve MCID in the EQ-5D-3L; however, did achieve small but significant improvements in the EQ-5D-3L, DAS28, pain, coping and self-efficacy. To be sustainable, MDT care should be targeted at patients with high disease activity or those with a new diagnosis of RA. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To see if a group course delivered by rheumatology teams using cognitive-behavioural approaches, plus usual care, reduced RA fatigue impact more than usual care alone.<b>METHODS: </b>Multicentre, 2-year randomised controlled trial in RA adults (fatigue severity>6/10, no recent major medication changes). RAFT (Reducing Arthritis Fatigue: clinical Teams using CB approaches) comprises seven sessions, codelivered by pairs of trained rheumatology occupational therapists/nurses. Usual care was Arthritis Research UK fatigue booklet. Primary 26-week outcome fatigue impact (Bristol RA Fatigue Effect Numerical Rating Scale, BRAF-NRS 0-10). Intention-to-treat regression analysis adjusted for baseline scores and centre.<b>RESULTS: </b>308/333 randomised patients completed 26 week data (156/175 RAFT, 152/158 Control). Mean baseline variables were similar. At 26 weeks, the adjusted difference between arms for fatigue impact change favoured RAFT (BRAF-NRS Effect -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.06), BRAF Multidimensional Questionnaire (MDQ) Total -3.42 (95% CI -6.44 to -0.39), Living with Fatigue -1.19 (95% CI -2.17 to -0.21), Emotional Fatigue -0.91 (95% CI -1.58 to -0.23); RA Self-Efficacy (RASE, +3.05, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.66) (14 secondary outcomes unchanged). Effects persisted at 2 years: BRAF-NRS Effect -0.49 (95% CI -0.83 to -0.14), BRAF MDQ Total -2.98 (95% CI -5.39 to -0.57), Living with Fatigue -0.93 (95% CI -1.75 to -0.10), Emotional Fatigue -0.90 (95% CI -1.44, to -0.37); BRAF-NRS Coping +0.42 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.77) (relevance of fatigue impact improvement uncertain). RAFT satisfaction: 89% scored > 8/10 vs 54% controls rating usual care booklet (p<0.0001).<b>CONCLUSION: </b>Multiple RA fatigue impacts can be improved for 2 years by rheumatology teams delivering a group programme using cognitive behavioural approaches.<b>Trial Registration Number: </b>ISRCTN52709998.
BACKGROUND: People with hand-related rheumatoid arthritis (RA) experience problems performing activities of daily living (ADL). Compensatory strategies to improve ADL ability have shown effective. Similarly, hand exercise has shown effect on pain, grip strength, and self-reported ability. A combination has shown positive effects based on self-report, but self-report and observation provide distinct information about ADL. The purpose of this study was to examine whether hand exercise as add on to compensatory intervention (CIP) will improve observed ADL ability in RA.
METHODS: Women (n = 55) with hand-related RA were randomized to CIPEXERCISE (intervention) or CIP only (control). CIP is focused on joint protection, assistive devices, and alternative ways of performing AD. The hand-exercise program addressed range of motion and muscle strength. Primary outcome was change in observed ADL motor ability measured by the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS). Baseline measures were repeated after 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Improvements in ADL motor ability in CIPEXERCISE (mean change = 0.24 logits; 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.39) and CIPCONTROL (mean change =0.20 logits; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.35) were statistically significant, with no differences between groups (mean difference = 0.04 logits; 95% CI = - 0.16 to 0.25). Thirteen (46.4%) participants in the CIPEXERCISE and 12 (44.4%) in the CIPCONTROL obtained clinically relevant improvements (≥ 0.30 logits) in ADL motor ability; this group difference was not significant (z = 0.15; p = 0.88).
CONCLUSION: Adding hand exercise to a compensatory intervention did not yield additional benefits in women with hand-related RA. The study was approved by the ethics committee 14th of April 2014 (H-3-2014-025) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov 16th of May 2014 (NCT02140866).
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a major problem in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is evidence for the clinical effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) delivered by clinical psychologists, but few rheumatology units have psychologists.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group CBT programme for RA fatigue [named RAFT, i.e. Reducing Arthritis Fatigue by clinical Teams using cognitive-behavioural (CB) approaches], delivered by the rheumatology team in addition to usual care (intervention), with usual care alone (control); and to evaluate tutors' experiences of the RAFT programme.
DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial. Central trials unit computerised randomisation in four consecutive cohorts within each of the seven centres. A nested qualitative evaluation was undertaken.
SETTING: Seven hospital rheumatology units in England and Wales.
PARTICIPANTS: Adults with RA and fatigue severity of ≥ 6 [out of 10, as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scale (BRAF-NRS)] who had no recent changes in major RA medication/glucocorticoids.
INTERVENTIONS: RAFT - group CBT programme delivered by rheumatology tutor pairs (nurses/occupational therapists). Usual care - brief discussion of a RA fatigue self-management booklet with the research nurse.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary - fatigue impact (as measured by the BRAF-NRS) at 26 weeks. Secondary - fatigue severity/coping (as measured by the BRAF-NRS); broader fatigue impact [as measured by the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multidimensional Questionnaire (BRAF-MDQ)]; self-reported clinical status; quality of life; mood; self-efficacy; and satisfaction. All data were collected at weeks 0, 6, 26, 52, 78 and 104. In addition, fatigue data were collected at weeks 10 and 18. The intention-to-treat analysis conducted was blind to treatment allocation, and adjusted for baseline scores and centre. Cost-effectiveness was explored through the intervention and RA-related health and social care costs, allowing the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L). Tutor and focus group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 308 out of 333 patients completed 26 weeks (RAFT, n/N = 156/175; control, n/N = 152/158). At 26 weeks, the mean BRAF-NRS impact was reduced for the RAFT programme (-1.36 units; p < 0.001) and the control interventions (-0.88 units; p < 0.004). Regression analysis showed a difference between treatment arms in favour of the RAFT programme [adjusted mean difference -0.59 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.11 to -0.06 units; p = 0.03, effect size 0.36], and this was sustained over 2 years (-0.49 units, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.14 units; p = 0.01). At 26 weeks, further fatigue differences favoured the RAFT programme (BRAF-MDQ fatigue impact: adjusted mean difference -3.42 units, 95% CI -6.44 to - 0.39 units, p = 0.03; living with fatigue: adjusted mean difference -1.19 units, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21 units, p = 0.02; and emotional fatigue: adjusted mean difference -0.91 units, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.23 units, p = 0.01), and these fatigue differences were sustained over 2 years. Self-efficacy favoured the RAFT programme at 26 weeks (Rheumatoid Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale: adjusted mean difference 3.05 units, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.6 units; p = 0.02), as did BRAF-NRS coping over 2 years (adjusted mean difference 0.42 units, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.77 units; p = 0.02). Fatigue severity and other clinical outcomes were not different between trial arms and no harms were reported. Satisfaction with the RAFT programme was high, with 89% of patients scoring ≥ 8 out of 10, compared with 54% of patients in the control arm rating the booklet (p < 0.0001); and 96% of patients and 68% of patients recommending the RAFT programme and the booklet, respectively, to others (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between arms for total societal costs including the RAFT programme training and delivery (mean difference £434, 95% CI -£389 to £1258), nor QALYs gained (mean difference 0.008, 95% CI -0.008 to 0.023). The probability of the RAFT programme being cost-effective was 28-35% at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's thresholds of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. Tutors felt that the RAFT programme's CB approaches challenged their usual problem-solving style, helped patients make life changes and improved tutors' wider clinical practice.
LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data were missing for 25 patients; the EQ-5D-5L might not capture fatigue change; and 30% of the 2-year economic data were missing.
CONCLUSIONS: The RAFT programme improves RA fatigue impact beyond usual care alone; this was sustained for 2 years with high patient satisfaction, enhanced team skills and no harms. The RAFT programme is < 50% likely to be cost-effective; however, NHS costs were similar between treatment arms.
FUTURE WORK: Given the paucity of RA fatigue interventions, rheumatology teams might investigate the pragmatic implementation of the RAFT programme, which is low cost.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52709998.
FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune, inflammatory disease that causes progressive destruction in the joints with the hands and wrists being the most frequent actively involved joint. Hand involvement significantly affects daily living activities in RA with decreased mobility. Aim of the study was to compare the effect of Proprioceptive retraining (PRT) technique over home exercise (HE) program on hand functions in RA. METHOD: After obtaining written informed consent, forty patients with rheumatoid arthritis for more than one year duration fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to two groups with 20 subjects each. One group received proprioceptive retraining and the other group received the home exercise programme for 8 weeks. RESULT: Data was analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 software. the hand functions in the PRt group improved significantly as compared to the HE group. Patients under both the programs showed significant improvement of hand functions after 8 weeks of intervention. CONCLUSION: The proprioceptive retraining technique is more effective than home exercise programme in improving hand functions in RA patients.
PURPOSE: In this manuscript, we evaluated the effectiveness of an intervention programme consisting of integrated care and a participatory workplace intervention on supervisor support, work instability and at-work productivity after 6 months of follow-up among workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial; we compared the intervention programme to usual care. Eligible patients were diagnosed with RA, had a paid job (> 8 h per week) and who experienced, at least, minor difficulties in work functioning. Supervisor support was measured with a subscale of the Job Content Questionnaire, work instability with the Work Instability Scale for RA, and at-work productivity with the Work Limitations Questionnaire. Data were analyzed using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A beneficial effect of the intervention programme was found on supervisor support among 150 patients. Analyses revealed no effects on work instability and at-work productivity. CONCLUSION: We found a small positive effect of the intervention on supervisor support, but did not find any effects on work instability and at-work productivity loss. Future research should establish whether this significant but small increase in supervisor support leads to improved work functioning in the long run. This study shows clinicians that patients with RA are in need of efforts to support them in their work functioning. Implications for Rehabilitation: 1. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease with a severe impact on work functioning, even when a patient is still working. 2. It is important to involve the workplace when an intervention is put in place to support RA patients in their work participation. 3. Supervisor support influences health outcomes of workers, and it is possible to improve supervisor support by an intervention which involves the workplace and supervisor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
Purpose To evaluate the effectiveness of a workplace integrated care intervention on at-work productivity loss in workers with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared to usual care. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, 150 workers with RA were randomized into either the intervention or control group. The intervention group received an integrated care and participatory workplace intervention. Outcome measures were the Work Limitations Questionnaire, Work Instability Scale for RA, pain, fatigue and quality of life (RAND 36). Participants filled out a questionnaire at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. We performed linear mixed models to analyse the outcomes. Results Participants were on average 50 years of age, and mostly female. After 12 months, no significant intervention effect was found on at-work productivity loss. We also found no significant intervention effects on any of the secondary outcomes. Conclusions We did not find evidence for the effectiveness of our workplace integrated care intervention after 12 months of follow up. Future studies should focus on investigating the intervention in groups of workers with severe limitations in work functioning, and an unstable work situation.
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>We have evaluated customized objectives, predefined during a therapeutic education session for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).<b>METHODS: </b>Fifty-four RA patients were randomised into patient therapeutic education (PTE) group versus waiting list (WL). The final comparative evaluation involved solving 3 predefined problems.<b>RESULTS: </b>Fifty-four were evaluated after 6 months. The main criterion was defined for all three of the chosen themes at 76.9% in the PTE group and 42.4% in the WL group. Among the other positively evaluated criteria were: less corticotherapy, more occupational therapy, more demand for social aid, more physical activity, knowledge of the recognition of an RA attack and how to cope with it. On the other hand, knowledge of the treatments did not differ between the 2 groups nor did the RAPID scores, fatigue, stiffness, depression, compliance, number of consultations and hospitalisations. Patient satisfaction was excellent (between 85.3 and 93.9%).<b>CONCLUSION: </b>This study is a good illustration of the position occupied and value of PTE in solving the problems specific to each RA case, the resulting high level of patient satisfaction and its independently complementary aspects relative to the purely medical treatment of RA. Customized PTE could better respond to specific patients problems in RA.
Arthritis gloves are frequently prescribed to people with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis (UIA) or RA to help reduce hand pain and improve function. Nested within a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of arthritis gloves (Isotoner gloves vs loose-fitting placebo gloves) in people with RA and UIA, this qualitative study aimed to explore participants' views on the impact of wearing arthritis gloves on their hand pain and function.
METHODS:
Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants following 12 weeks of glove wearing. Participants and the interviewer were blinded to the treatment allocation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS:
Participants (intervention: n = 10; control: n = 9) recruited from 13 National Health Service hospital sites in the UK participated in the interviews. Two main themes, with sub-themes, were elicited from the data: mechanisms determining glove use: 'As soon as your joints get a bit warmer, the pain actually eases' (thermal qualities; glove use in daily activities; glove use during sleep); and ambivalence about benefits of arthritis gloves: 'I suppose a normal pair of gloves would do the same sort of thing?' (are they a help or hindrance?; aesthetic appeal; future use of gloves).
CONCLUSION:
Participants had ambivalent views on the impact of both the intervention and the loose-fitting placebo gloves on their hand pain and function, identifying warmth as the main benefit. Ordinary mid-finger-length gloves widely accessible from high street suppliers could deliver warmth and provide the perceived benefits to hand pain and function. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN25892131; registered 5 September 2016 : retrospectively registered.
