Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Osteoarthritis (OA) causes pain and disability, with onset often during working age. Joint pain is associated with functional difficulties and may lead to work instability. The aims of this systematic review are to identify: the impact of OA on work participation; and biopsychosocial and work-related factors associated with absenteeism, presenteeism, work transitions, work impairment, work accommodations, and premature work loss. Methods Four databases were searched, including Medline. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used for quality assessment, with narrative synthesis to pool findings due to heterogeneity of study designs and work outcomes. Results Nineteen studies met quality criteria (eight cohort; 11 cross-sectional): nine included OA of any joint(s), five knee-only, four knee and/or hip, and one knee, hip, and hand OA. All were conducted in high income countries. Absenteeism due to OA was low. Presenteeism rates were four times greater than absenteeism. Performing physically intensive work was associated with absenteeism, presenteeism, and premature work loss due to OA. Moderate-to-severe joint pain and pain interference were associated with presenteeism, work transition, and premature work loss. A smaller number of studies found that comorbidities were associated with absenteeism and work transitions. Two studies reported low co-worker support was associated with work transitions and premature work loss. Conclusions Physically intensive work, moderate-to-severe joint pain, co-morbidities, and low co-worker support potentially affects work participation in OA. Further research, using longitudinal study designs and examining the links between OA and biopsychosocial factors e.g., workplace accommodations, is needed to identify targets for interventions. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019133343 .

BackgroundDespite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have ‘difficult-to-treat RA’. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking.ObjectiveThe Task Force in charge of the “Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis” aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to-treat RA, as the first step.MethodsThe Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting).ResultsThe following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: (1) Treatment according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendation and failure of ≥2 biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)/targeted synthetic DMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing conventional synthetic DMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); (2) presence of at least one of the following: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; and (3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient.ConclusionsThe proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).MethodsAn EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A–D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0–10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.ResultsTwo overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4–9.6).ConclusionsThese PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Background Although the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire is widely used in the UK, no British English version is available. The aim of this study was to linguistically validate the DASH into British English and then test the reliability and validity of the British English DASH, (including the Work and Sport/Music DASH) and QuickDASH, in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods The DASH was forward translated, reviewed by an expert panel and cognitive debriefing interviews undertaken with 31 people with RA. Content validity was evaluated using the ICF Core Set for RA. Participants with RA ( n  = 340) then completed the DASH, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Short Form Health Survey v2 (SF36v2) and Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAPHAND). We examined internal consistency and concurrent validity for the DASH, Work and Sport/Music DASH modules and QuickDASH. Participants repeated the DASH to assess test-retest reliability. Results Minor wording changes were made as required. The DASH addresses a quarter of Body Function and half of Activities and Participation codes in the ICF RA Core Set. Internal consistency for DASH scales were consistent with individual use (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94–0.98). Concurrent validity was strong with the HAQ (r s  = 0.69–0.91), SF36v2 Physical Function (r s  = − 0.71 - − 0.85), Bodily Pain (r s  = − 0.71 - − 0.74) scales and MAPHAND (r s  = 0.71–0.93). Test-retest reliability was good (r s  = 0.74–0.95). Conclusions British English versions of the DASH, QuickDASH and Work and Sport/Music modules are now available to evaluate upper limb disabilities in the UK. The DASH, QuickDASH, Work and Sport/Music modules are reliable and valid to use in clinical practice and research with British people with RA.

Background/objectivesTo maintain and optimise the quality of care provided by health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs), adequate educational offerings are needed. This task force (TF) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the generic core competences of HPRs, with specific reference to nurses, physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) to serve as a basis for their postgraduate education.MethodsThe EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. A TF including rheumatologists, nurses, PTs, OTs, patient-representatives, an educationalist, methodologists and researchers from 12 countries met twice. In the first TF meeting, 13 research questions were defined to support a systematic literature review (SLR). In the second meeting, the SLR evidence was discussed and recommendations formulated. Subsequently, level of evidence and strength of recommendation were assigned and level of agreement (LoA) determined (0–10 rating scale).ResultsThree overarching principles were identified and 10 recommendations were developed for the generic core competences of HPRs. The SLR included 79 full-text papers, 20 of which addressed the competences, knowledge, skills, attitudes and/or educational needs of HPRs from multiple professions. The average LoA for each recommendation ranged from 9.42 to 9.79. Consensus was reached both on a research and educational agenda.ConclusionEvidence and expert opinion informed a set of recommendations providing guidance on the generic core competences of HPRs. Implementation of these recommendations in the postgraduate education of HPRs at the international and national level is advised, considering variation in healthcare systems and professional roles.

Background and Objectives: Smart wearable devices are effective in diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) prevention. However, factors determining their acceptance are poorly understood. This systematic review aims to examine the literature on patient and provider perspectives of smart wearable devices in DFU prevention. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched up to October 2021. The selected articles were assessed for methodological quality using the quality assessment tool for studies with diverse designs. Results: A total of five articles were identified and described. The methodological quality of the studies ranged from low to moderate. Two studies employed a quantitative study design and focused on the patient perspective, whereas three studies included a mixed, quantitative/qualitative design and explored patient or provider (podiatrist) perspectives. Four studies focused on an insole system and one included a smart sock device. The quantitative studies demonstrated that devices were comfortable, well designed and useful in preventing DFU. One mixed design study reported that patients did not intend to adopt an insole device in its current design because of malfunctions, a lack of comfort. and alert intrusiveness, despite the general perception that the device was a useful tool for foot risk monitoring. Two mixed design studies found that performance expectancy was a predictor of a podiatrist’s behavioural intention to recommend an insole device in clinical practice. Disappointing participant experiences negatively impacted the podiatrists’ intention to adopt a smart device. The need for additional refinements of the device was indicated by patients and providers before its use in this population. Conclusions: The current evidence about patient and provider perspectives on smart wearable technology is limited by scarce methodological quality and conflicting results. It is, thus, not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding acceptability of these devices for the prevention of DFU in people with diabetes.

Background The cost of losing foot health is significant to the person, healthcare systems, and economy, with diabetes related foot health issues alone costing over £1 billion annually in the UK. Yet many foot health problems are preventable through alternative health behaviour. It is therefore important to understand how feet, foot health and footwear are conceptualised to gain understanding about how these might influence foot health behaviour and inform health messages that seek to protect or improve foot health through altered health behaviour. This research seeks to explore attitudes and beliefs and identify phenomena that may act as barriers or motivators to the proactive self-management of foot health. Methods Public conversations involving 2,699 expressions related to feet, footwear or foot health on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram were extracted. Conversations on Facebook and Twitter were scraped with NVivo’s NCapture plugin whereby data is extracted and downloaded to NVivo. Extracted files were uploaded to the Big Content Machine (software developed at the University of Salford) which facilitated the search for keywords ‘foot’, ‘feet’, ‘footwear’, ‘shoe’, and ‘shoes’. Instagram was scraped by hand. Data was analysed using a Thematic Analysis approach. Results Three themes were identified; 1) connections and disconnections derived from social and cultural constructs, 2) phenomena beyond attitudes and beliefs that relate to symbolic representations and the impact when foot health is lost, and 3) phenomena relating to Social Media as a conduit for the exploration of attitudes and beliefs. Conclusions This novel research exemplifies complex and sometimes incongruous perspectives about feet including their value for what they facilitate, contrasted with negative feelings about the negative impact that can have aesthetically when feet work hard. Sometimes feet were devalued, with expressions of disgust, disconnection, and ridicule. The importance of contextual, social, and cultural phenomena with implications for optimising foot health messages. Knowledge gaps including factors related to children’s foot health and development, and how to treat foot health problems. The power of communities with shared experience to influence decisions, theories, and behaviour about foot health was also revealed. While people do talk about feet in some social contexts, it is not always in a way that promotes overt, positive foot health behaviour. Finally, this research demonstrates the benefit of exploring perspectives in uncontrived settings and illuminates the potential utility of social media (SoMe) platforms Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter as vehicles to promote foot health self-management behaviour that is responsive to the social and demographic variances of engagers who inhabit those spaces.

Introduction Therapeutic offloading devices, including insoles, shoes, and other orthoses, are some of the most commonly used interventions to treat or prevent diabetic foot ulceration. Custom-made offloading devices are increasingly used to offset the development of foot ulcers. However, whether these devices are more effective than prefabricated standard offloading devices is uncertain. Therefore, this systematic review collates and examines evidence on the efficacy of custom-made offloading devices in preventing foot ulcer incidence and recurrence in people diagnosed with diabetes. Methods Five scientific databases were searched, covering 2011–2023. Initial searches and screening were carried out independently by two researchers. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were further examined through additional screenings, and critical appraisal. Data relevant to the review aims were extracted and analysed within a narrative synthesis. Results Of the 1,715 articles found in the initial searches, nine papers were found to meet inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The evidence shows that custom-made offloading devices are likely to be more effective for reducing or preventing diabetic foot ulcers than standard offloading devices. However, due to a lack of data it remains uncertain whether custom-made offloading devices are more cost-effective for preventing ulceration compared to standard insoles. Likewise, due to measurement heterogeneity between studies and lack of data, it is unclear whether adherence is higher in users of custom-made offloading devices, and whether such devices deliver significantly greater reductions in peak pressure as compared to standard offloading devices. Conclusion Custom-made offloading devices are more effective than standard devices for preventing diabetic foot ulceration, and we recommended their use when feasible; however, there remains uncertainty regarding their cost-effectiveness compared to standard insoles and offloading devices.

Background Developed in the Norway, the Measure of Activity Performance of the Hand (MAP-Hand) assesses 18 activities performed using the hands. It was developed for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using patient generated items, which are scored on a 0–3 scale and summarised into a total score range (0 to 54). This study reports the development and psychometric testing of the British English MAP-Hand in a UK population of people with RA. Methods Recruitment took place in the National Health Service (NHS) through 17 Rheumatology outpatient clinics. Phase 1 (cross-cultural adaptation) involved: forward translation to British English; synthesis; expert panel review and cognitive debriefing interviews with people with RA. Phase 2 (psychometric testing) involved postal completion of the MAP-Hand, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Upper Limb HAQ (ULHAQ), Short-Form 36 (SF-36 v2 ) and Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder Hand (DASH) to measure internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha); concurrent validity (Spearman’s correlations) and Minimal Detectable Difference (MDC 95 ). The MAP-Hand was repeated three-weeks later to assess test-retest reliability (linear weighted kappa and Intra-Class Correlations (ICC (2,1)). Unidimensionality (internal construct validity) was assessed using (i) Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (ii) Mokken scaling and (iii) Rasch model. The RUMM2030 software was used, applying the Rasch partial credit model. Results In Phase 1, 31 participants considered all items relevant. In Phase 2, 340 people completed Test-1 and 273 (80%) completed Test-2 questionnaires. Internal consistency was excellent (α = 0.96). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC (2,1) = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94, 0.97)). The MAP-Hand correlated strongly with HAQ20 (r s  = .88), ULHAQ (r s  = .91), SF-36 v2 Physical Functioning (PF) Score (r s  = −.80) and DASH (r s  = .93), indicating strong concurrent validity. CFA failed to support unidimensionality (Chi-Square 236.0 (df 120; p  < 0.001)). However, Mokken scaling suggested a probabilistic ordering. There was differential item functioning (DIF) for gender. Four testlets were formed, resulting in much improved fit and unidimensionality. Following this, testlets were further merged in pairs where opposite bias existed. This resulted in perfect fit to the model. Conclusions The British English version of the MAP-Hand has good validity and reliability in people with RA and can be used in both research and clinical practice.