Participant-reported effect of an Indigenous health continuing professional development initiative for specialists.

BACKGROUND: Health outcomes of Indigenous patients are impacted by culturally unsafe specialty care environments. The 'Educating for Equity (E4E)' program is a continuing professional development (CPD) intervention which incorporates skill-based teaching to improve Indigenous patient experiences and outcomes in healthcare interactions. METHODS: The E4E program was delivered to rheumatologists in two phases, each delivered as experiential learning workshops where participants engaged with and applied course content within an interactive format focusing on real-time feedback. The phase 1 workshop focused on skill development of E4E Framework concepts and principles. Phase 2 concentrated on building capacity for teaching of E4E content. Evaluation of the program's effectiveness was through longitudinal responses to the Social Cultural Confidence in Care Survey (SCCCS), self-reported strategies employed to address social issues and improve therapeutic relationships, engagement with teaching others, and satisfaction with the program. RESULTS: Two cohorts of participants have participated in the program (n = 24 Phase 1, n = 10 Phase 2). For participants completing both phases of training, statistically significant improvements were observed in exploring social factors with patients, gaining knowledge and skills related to cultural aspects of care, improved communication and relationship building, and reflections on held stereotypes. Strategies to address social issues and build therapeutic relationships remained consistent throughout participation, while the training enhanced exploration and confidence to ask about cultural and traditional practices, and stronger communication strategies for exploring beliefs, expectations, social barriers, and residential school impacts on health. Participants reported feeling prepared to teach Indigenous health concepts to others and subsequently lead teaching with residents, fellows, and allied health professionals. Satisfaction with the delivery and content of the workshops was high, and participants valued interactions with peers in learning. CONCLUSIONS: This CPD intervention had a beneficial impact on self-reported confidence and enhanced practice strategies to engage with Indigenous patients.

Minimal clinically important difference for 7 measures of fatigue in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for 7 measures of fatigue in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: Study subjects completed 7 fatigue instruments [Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Vitality scale of the MOS-SF-36, Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and a global Rating Scale (RS)] and then participated in a series of interviews with other study participants comparing their fatigue with one another. Each interview participant rated the difference in their fatigue levels on a 7-point transition scale. The MCID was estimated from the mean difference in fatigue scores between each pair of interview participants based on their subjective rating of fatigue contrast. The MCID was also estimated using linear regression modeling. RESULTS: Eighty patients with SLE participated. Patients reported significant levels of fatigue [mean normalized (0 = none, 100 = maximum) fatigue scores for the 7 instruments ranged from 49.8 (CFS) to 71.1 (FSS)]. The MCID of "a little more" fatigue tended to be greater than the MCID for a "little less fatigue" and differed significantly for FSS and MAF. The MCID of normalized scores estimated by linear regression ranged from 7.0 (CFS) to 14.3 (MFI). CONCLUSION: Fatigue is a common and debilitating component of SLE. Estimates of MCID will help to interpret changes observed in a fatigue score and will be critical in estimating sample size requirements for clinical trials including fatigue as an outcome.

Determination of the minimal clinically important difference for seven fatigue measures in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of seven measures of fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study design based on interindividual comparisons was used. Six to eight subjects participated in a single meeting and completed seven fatigue questionnaires (nine sessions were organized and 61 subjects participated). After completion of the questionnaires, the subjects had five one-on-one 10-minute conversations with different people in the group to discuss their fatigue. After each conversation, each patient compared their fatigue to their conversational partners on a global rating. Ratings were compared to the scores of the fatigue measures to estimate the MCID. Both nonparametric and linear regression analyses were used. RESULTS: Nonparametric estimates for the MCID relative to "little more fatigue" tended to be smaller than those for "little less fatigue." The global MCIDs estimated by linear regression were: Fatigue Severity Scale, 20.2; Vitality scale of the MOS-SF36, 14.8; Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue, 18.7; Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, 16.6; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, 15.9; Chalder Fatigue Scale, 9.9; 10-point numerical Rating Scale, 19.7, for normalized scores (0-100). The standardized MCIDs for the seven measures were roughly similar (0.67-0.76). CONCLUSION: These estimates of MCID will help to interpret changes observed in a fatigue score and will be critical in estimating sample size requirements.

Long-term tolerability of the bisphosphonates in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a comparative review.

Osteoporosis in postmenopausal women is a growing health concern for society. Bisphosphonates have become the mainstay of prevention and treatment with the mounting evidence of their efficacy over the past two decades. This review article examines the use of the etidronate, alendronate and risedronate. The pivotal trials are reviewed for long-term tolerability, evidence regarding histological safety and gastrointestinal tolerance. Etidronate, alendronate and risedronate have also been examined in meta-analyses, which reviewed methodologically sound trials. Length of treatment, adverse events and medication discontinuation and patients lost to follow-up were evaluated. Etidronate trials and the recent meta-analysis support the safe clinical use of cyclical etidronate with no signs of osteomalacia or other skeletal pathology over 2 to 3 years. In addition to increased bone mineral density (BMD) and vertebral fracture risk reduction, patients tolerated cyclical etidronate well up to 4 years in randomised studies. Non-randomised data has shown safety up to 7 years with clinical and bone biopsy data. Alendronate studies demonstrated similar overall adverse event rates, study discontinuation rates and loss to follow-up rates between placebo and treatment arms, in addition to consistent improvements in BMD, vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk reductions over 3 to 4 years. Histological safety has been demonstrated up to 3 years. Longer-term therapy in non-randomised trials up to 7 years showed similar clinical safety between alendronate and placebo. Risedronate trials and the meta-analysis also showed similar adverse event profiles between placebo and treatment arms, as well as improvements in BMD, vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk reductions up to 3 years. Rates of discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events were similar between groups. Histological safety has also been demonstrated for risedronate up to 3 years. Each of these bisphosphonates have been shown to have comparable safety with placebo up to 3 to 4 years, with the most rigourous trials carried out for alendronate and risedronate. Long-term comparative studies are awaited.