scholarly journals Development of generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 EULAR recommendations

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e001028
Author(s):  
George E Fragoulis ◽  
Lisa Edelaar ◽  
Theodora P M Vliet Vlieland ◽  
Annamaria Iagnocco ◽  
Valentin Sebastian Schäfer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
National Level ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Core Competences ◽  
Generic Competences

ObjectiveTo identify generic competences on the desired knowledge, skills and of health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) to inform the respective EULAR recommendations.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed on the generic core competences (defined as knowledge, skills or attitudes) of HPRs (nurses, physical therapists (PTs) or occupational therapists (OTs)). Literature was obtained from electronic databases, published EULAR recommendations and via personal communication with representatives of national rheumatology societies and experts in the field. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies were included, and their methodological quality was scored using appropriate instruments.ResultsFrom 766 references reviewed, 79 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty studies addressed competences of multiple HPRs: 15 were of qualitative design, 1 quantitative, 1 mixed-methods, 2 systematic reviews and 1 opinion paper. The methodological quality of most studies was medium to high. Five studies concerned the development of a comprehensive set of competences. Key competences included: basic knowledge of rheumatic diseases, holistic approach to patient management, effective communication with colleagues and patients and provision of education to patients. The proposed competences were confirmed in studies focusing on one or more specific competences, on a rheumatic disease or on a specific profession (nurses, PTs or OTs).ConclusionGeneric competences were identified for HPRs. Data were mostly derived from qualitative studies. All identified studies varied and were at national level, highlighting the need for the harmonisation of HPR competences across Europe. These findings underpin the development of EULAR recommendations for the core competences of HPRs.

scholarly journals 2019 EULAR recommendations for the generic core competences of health professionals in rheumatology

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Edelaar ◽  
Elena Nikiphorou ◽  
George E Fragoulis ◽  
Annamaria Iagnocco ◽  
Catherine Haines ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Task Force ◽  
National Level ◽  
Postgraduate Education ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Core Competences

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.

scholarly journals SAT0052 THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES IN DIFFICULT-TO-TREAT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW INFORMING THE 2020 EULAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIFFICULT-TO-TREAT RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 957-957
Author(s):  
N. M. T. Roodenrijs ◽  
A. Hamar ◽  
M. Kedves ◽  
G. Nagy ◽  
J. M. Van Laar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Eular Recommendations ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Fatigue Exercise ◽  
Factor Inhibitor ◽  
Management Recommendations ◽  
Sat 1

Background:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated according to European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations failing ≥2 biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) with a different mode of action who still have complaints which may be suggestive of active disease may be defined as suffering from ‘difficult-to-treat RA’. Management recommendations for RA focus predominantly on the earlier phases of the disease and specific recommendations for difficult-to-treat RA patients are currently lacking.1Objectives:To systematically summarise evidence in the literature on pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies for difficult-to-treat RA patients, informing the 2020 EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat RA.Methods:A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.Results:Thirty articles were selected for therapeutic strategies in patients with limited DMARD options due to contraindications, 73 for patients in whom previous b/tsDMARDs were not effective (‘true refractory RA’), and 51 for patients with predominantly non-inflammatory complaints. For patients with limited DMARD options, limited evidence was found on effective DMARD options for patients with concomitant obesity, and on safe DMARD options for patients with concomitant hepatitis B and C. In patients who failed ≥2 bDMARDs, tocilizumab, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib were found to be more effective than placebo, but evidence was insufficient to prioritise. In patients who failed ≥1 bDMARD, there was a tendency of non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFi (Figure 1). Generally, b/tsDMARDs become less effective when patients failed more bDMARDs, this tendency was not clear for upadacitinib and filgotinib (Figure 2). In patients with predominantly non-inflammatory complaints (mainly function, pain and fatigue), exercise, education, psychological and self-management interventions were found to be of additional benefit.Conclusion:This SLR underscores the scarcity of evidence on the optimal treatment of difficult-to-treat RA patients. As difficult-to-treat RA is a newly defined disease state, all evidence is to an extent indirect. Several b/tsDMARDs were found to be effective in patients who failed ≥2 bDMARDs and generally effectiveness decreased with a higher number of failed bDMARDs. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found on non-inflammatory complaints.References:[1] Smolen JSet al. Ann Rheum Dis2020. Epub ahead of print.Disclosure of Interests:Nadia M. T. Roodenrijs: None declared, Attila Hamar: None declared, Melinda Kedves: None declared, György Nagy: None declared, Jacob M. van Laar Grant/research support from: MSD, Genentech, Consultant of: MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BMS, Désirée van der Heijde Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma; Director of Imaging Rheumatology BV, Paco Welsing: None declared

scholarly journals How to do a systematic literature review

2000 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Papadopoulos ◽  
P. Rheeder
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Making Choices

Physiotherapists, whether serving individual patients or populations, always have to sought to base their decisions and actions on the best possible evidence. In making choices, health professionals may benefit from structured summaries of the options and outcomes, systematic reviews of the evidence and recommendations regarding the best choices. The aim of this paper is to present guidelines on how to conduct a systematic review. The structure and content of a systematic review are being discussed, following a step-by-step approach.

scholarly journals Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 725-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divya Talwar ◽  
Tung-Sung Tseng ◽  
Margaret Foster ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
Lei-Shih Chen
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Genomics Education

Current evidence for a strategic approach to the management of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 987-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Knevel ◽  
M Schoels ◽  
T W J Huizinga ◽  
D Aletaha ◽  
G R Burmester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Eular Recommendations

ObjectivesTo perform a systematic literature review of effective strategies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAs part of a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Task Force investigation, a literature search was carried out from January 1962 until February 2009 in PubMed/Ovid Embase/Cochrane and EULAR/American College of Rheumatism (ACR)) abstracts (2007/2008) for studies with a treatment strategy adjusted to target a predefined outcome. Articles were systematically reviewed and clinical outcome, physical function and structural damage were compared between intensive and less intensive strategies. The results were evaluated by an expert panel to consolidate evidence on treatment strategies in RA.ResultsThe search identified two different kinds of treatment strategies: strategies in which the reason for treatment adjustment differed between the study arms (‘steering strategies’, n=13) and strategies in which all trial arms used the same clinical outcome to adjust treatment with different pharmacological treatments (‘medication strategies’, n=7). Both intensive steering strategies and intensive medication strategies resulted in better outcome than less intensive strategies in patients with early active RA.ConclusionIntensive steering strategies and intensive medication strategies produce a better clinical outcome, improved physical function and less structural damage than conventional steering or treatment. Proof in favour of any steering method is lacking and the best medication sequence is still not known.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document