Effect of a Group Behavioural Management Program on Emotional Regulation of Food Choices: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: In Ontario, group programs to increase mindfulness of food choices are provided in Family Health Teams (FHTs), but evaluation is limited. We targeted patients with chronic conditions that could benefit from intensified management and evaluated an existing program. METHODS: We included 3 FHTs. Patients were randomized to immediate participation in the intervention (n = 16) or to wait-list control (n = 14). Eligible participants were between 40 and 70 years old, living with diabetes and/or hypertension and had at least 2 of: elevated cholesterol (LDL >4 if hypertension or LDL >2 mmol/L if diabetes), blood sugar (A1c >7.5%), or blood pressure (systolic BP >140). The intervention was a 6-week group program of 2-hour weekly sessions addressing mindfulness of food choices facilitated by a trained dietitian and social worker. We used the Emotional Eating Questionnaire (EEQ) a validated 10-item questionnaire measuring the degree of interaction between food intake and emotion. The primary outcome was change in the EEQ over 6 weeks. RESULTS: There was no difference in the change in EEQ in either unadjusted (P = 0.4) or adjusted (P = 0.3) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found no effect for this intervention, although the small sample size limits interpretation. The results were contrary to what was expected.

Finding a BETTER way: a qualitative study exploring the prevention practitioner intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in family practice.

BACKGROUND: Our randomized controlled trial (The BETTER Trial) found that training a clinician to become a Prevention Practitioner (PP) in family practices improved chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS). PPs were trained on CDPS and provided prevention prescriptions tailored to participating patients. For this embedded qualitative study, we explored perceptions of this new role to understand the PP intervention. METHODS: We used grounded theory methodology and purposefully sampled participants involved in any capacity with the BETTER Trial. Two physicians and one coordinator in each of two cities (Toronto, Ontario and Edmonton, Alberta) conducted eight individual semi-structured interviews and seven focus groups. We used an interview guide and documented research activities through an audit trail, journals, field notes and memos. We analyzed the data using the constant comparative method throughout open coding followed by theoretical coding. RESULTS: A framework and process involving external and internal practice facilitation using the new role of PP was thought to impact CDPS. The PP facilitated CDPS through on-going relationships with patients and practice team members. Key components included: 1) approaching CDPS in a comprehensive manner, 2) an individualized and personalized approach at multiple levels, 3) integrated continuity that included linking the patients and practices to CPDS resources, and 4) adaptability to different practices and settings. CONCLUSIONS: The BETTER framework and key components are described as impacting CDPS through a process that involved a new role, the PP. The introduction of a novel role of a clinician within the primary care practice with skills in CDPS could appropriately address gaps in prevention and screening.

Capitalizing on the teachable moment: osteoarthritis physical activity and exercise net for improving physical activity in early knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines emphasize the use of exercise and weight reduction as the first line of management for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, less than half of the people with mild OA participate in moderate intensity physical activity. Given that physical activities have been shown to reduce pain, improve quality of life, and have the potential to reduce the progression of joint damage, many people with OA are missing the benefits of this inexpensive intervention. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are (1) to develop a behavioral theory-informed Internet intervention called Osteoarthritis Physical Activity & Exercise Net (OPEN) for people with previously undiagnosed knee OA, and (2) to assess the efficacy of the OPEN website for improving physical activity participation through a proof-of-concept study. METHODS: OPEN was developed based on the theory of planned behavior. Efficacy of this online intervention is being assessed by an ongoing proof-of-concept, single-blind randomized controlled trial in British Columbia, Canada. We are currently recruiting participants and plan to recruit a total of 252 sedentary people with previously undiagnosed knee OA using a set of validated criteria. Half of the participants will be randomized to use OPEN and receive an OA education pamphlet. The other half only will receive the pamphlet. Participants will complete an online questionnaire at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months about their participation in physical activities, health-related quality of life, and motivational outcomes. In addition, we will perform an aerobic fitness test in a sub-sample of participants (n=20 per study arm). In the primary analysis, we will use logistic regression to compare the proportion of participants reporting being physically active at or above the recommended level in the 2 groups, adjusting for baseline measurement, age, and sex. RESULTS: This study evaluates a theory-informed behavioral intervention at a time when people affected with OA tend to be more motivated to adopt an active lifestyle (ie, at the early stage of OA). Our approach, which consisted of the identification of early knee OA followed immediately by an online intervention that directly targets physical inactivity, can be easily implemented across communities. CONCLUSIONS: Our online intervention directly targets physical inactivity at a time when the joint damage tends to be mild. If OPEN is found to be effective in changing long-term physical activity behaviors, it opens further opportunities to promote early diagnosis and to implement lifestyle interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01608282; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01608282 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6G7sBBayI).

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: part II safety.

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part II, focusing on specific safety aspects of treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA, is reported here. METHODS: Key questions were identified a priori based on results of a national needs-assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and was supplemented with a "grey literature" search including relevant public health guidelines. Systematic reviews of postmarketing surveillance and RA registry studies were performed to update included guideline literature reviews as appropriate. Guideline quality was independently assessed by 2 reviewers. Guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The working group voted on recommendations using a modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: Thirteen recommendations addressing perioperative care, screening for latent tuberculosis infection prior to the initiation of biologic DMARD, optimal vaccination practices, and treatment of RA patients with active or a history of malignancy were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and RA patients. CONCLUSION: These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international RA and public health guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus in the context of the Canadian health system. They are intended to help promote best practices and improve healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) has developed recommendations for the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in 2 parts. Part 1 is reported here. METHODS: The CRA Therapeutics Committee assembled a national working group of RA clinical experts, researchers, patient consumers, and a general practitioner. Treatment questions were developed a priori based on results of a national needs assessment survey. A systematic review of all clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding treatment with traditional and biologic DMARD in patients with RA published between January 2000 and June 2010 was performed in Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the grey literature. Guideline quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers, and guideline characteristics, recommendations, and supporting evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials were synthesized into evidence tables. The full working group reviewed the evidence tables and developed recommendations using a modified Delphi technique. RESULTS: Five overarching principles and 26 recommendations addressing general RA management strategies and treatment with glucocorticoids and traditional and biologic DMARD were developed for rheumatologists, other primary prescribers of RA drug therapies, and patients with RA. CONCLUSION: These recommendations were developed based on a synthesis of international guidelines, supporting evidence, and expert consensus considering the Canadian healthcare context with the intention of promoting best practices and improving healthcare delivery for persons with RA.

Measuring process of arthritis care: the Arthritis Foundation's quality indicator set for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the scientific evidence that supports each of the explicit process measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis. METHODS: For each of the 27 measures in the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator set, a comprehensive literature review was performed for evidence that linked the process of care defined in the indicator with relevant clinical outcomes and to summarize practice guidelines relevant to the indicators. RESULTS: Over 7500 titles were identified and reviewed. For each of the indicators the scientific evidence to support or refute the quality indicator was summarized. We found direct evidence that supported a process-outcome link for 15 of the indicators, an indirect link for 7 of the indicators, and no evidence to support or refute a link for 5. The processes of care described in the indicators for which no supporting/refuting data were found have been assumed to be so essential to care that clinical trails assessing their importance have not, and probably never will be, performed. The process of care described in all but 2 of the indicators is recommended in 1 or more practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: There are sufficient scientific evidence and expert consensus to support the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator Set for Rheumatoid Arthritis, which defines a minimal standard of care that can be used to assess health care quality for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Systematic review of the effects of n-3 fatty acids in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: n-3 Fatty acids are purported to have health effects in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but studies have reported mixed results. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize published and unpublished evidence to determine estimates of the effect of n-3 fatty acids on clinical outcomes in IBD and whether n-3 fatty acids modify the effects of or need for treatment with other agents. DESIGN: Computerized databases were searched for studies of n-3 fatty acids in immune-mediated diseases from 1966 to 2003. We also contacted experts in the nutraceutical industry to identify unpublished studies; however, none were identified. RESULTS: Reviewers identified 13 controlled trials that assessed the effects of n-3 fatty acids on clinical, sigmoidoscopic, or histologic scores; rates of induced remission or relapse; or requirements for steroids and other immunosuppressive agents in Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis. Most clinical trials were of good quality. Fewer than 6 were identified that assessed the effects of n-3 fatty acids on any single outcome of clinical, endoscopic, or histologic scores or remission or relapse rates. Consistent across 3 studies was the finding that n-3 fatty acids reduce corticosteroid requirements, although statistical significance was shown in only 1 of these studies. CONCLUSION: The available data are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of n-3 fatty acids on clinical, endoscopic, or histologic scores or remission or relapse rates.

Measuring quality in arthritis care: the Arthritis Foundation's Quality Indicator set for osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive set of explicit process measures to assess the quality of health care for osteoarthritis and to describe the scientific evidence that supports each measure. METHODS: Through a comprehensive literature review, we developed potential quality measures and a summary of existing data to support or refute the relationship between the processes of care proposed in the indicators and relevant clinical outcomes. The proposed measures and literature summary were presented to a multidisciplinary panel of experts in arthritis and pain. The panel rated each proposed measure for its validity as a measure of health care quality. RESULTS: Among 22 measures proposed for osteoarthritis, the expert panel rated 14 as valid measures of health care quality. CONCLUSION: Sufficient scientific evidence and expert consensus exist to support a comprehensive set of measures to assess the quality of heath care for osteoarthritis. These measures can be used to gain an understanding of the quality of care for patients with osteoarthritis.

Use of mainstream nonpharmacologic treatment by patients with arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of nonpharmacologic treatment by patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were recruited from physicians' offices in Ontario, Canada. All participants completed questionnaires that asked about their health status, use of medications and nonpharmacologic treatments, and use of health care resources. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients with OA and 253 patients with RA completed the survey on the use of nonpharmacologic treatment. Only 73% of patients with OA had been told to use nonpharmacologic modalities, but 98.8% had tried at least 1 type of treatment. About 97% of those with RA had been told to use and had tried at least 1 type of treatment. Most patients continued to use a treatment once they had tried it. CONCLUSION: The use of nonpharmacologic modalities is common among patients with arthritis. It is important that clinicians address with their patients the appropriate use of and barriers to continuing these treatments.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of lower-limb osteoarthritis.

Clinical practice guidelines are important tools to assist clinical decision-making. Recently, several guidelines addressing the management of osteoarthritis (OA) have been published. Clinicians treating patients with OA must ensure that these guidelines are developed with consistency and methodological rigour. We undertook a qualitative summary and critical appraisal of six medical treatment guidelines for the management of lower-limb OA published in the medical literature within the past 5 years. A review of these six guidelines revealed that each possesses strengths and weakness. While most described the scope and intended patient populations, the guidelines varied considerably in the rigour of their development, coverage of implementation issues, and disclosure of conflicts of interest.