Background/Aims  Patients with inflammatory arthritis report that fatigue can be a challenging symptom to manage, with little support available. In response, we developed a brief one-to-one cognitive-behavioural manualised intervention, delivered by rheumatology health professionals (RHPs), to help patients manage their fatigue. Methods  We designed a single-arm feasibility study called FREE-IA (Fatigue - Reducing its Effects through individualised support Episodes in Inflammatory Arthritis). Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had a clinician confirmed diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, scored ≥6/10 on the BRAF NRS Fatigue Impact with fatigue that they considered recurrent, frequent, and/or persistent, and were not accessing support for their fatigue. Following training, RHPs delivered 2-4 one-to-one sessions to participants. The initial two core sessions were delivered face-to-face in clinic; participants then had the option of up to two further sessions, either in clinic, by telephone or online. We proposed delivering sessions 1 and 2 within two weeks of each other, and sessions 3 and 4 in the following two weeks. Baseline data were collected before the first session (T0), and outcomes at six weeks (T1) and six months (T2). The primary outcome was fatigue impact (BRAF NRS Fatigue Effect), collected by telephone. Secondary outcomes included fatigue severity, fatigue coping, multi-dimensional impact of fatigue, disease impact and disability and measures of therapeutic mechanism (self-efficacy, and perceived confidence and autonomy to manage health). These outcomes were collected by post. This study allowed us to test the feasibility and acceptability of RHP training, study design and materials, intervention delivery and outcome collection, ahead of a possible RCT to determine intervention effectiveness. Results  Eight RHPs at five hospitals delivered 113 sessions to 46 participants. Four sessions were delivered by phone and none online. Session 2 was only delivered within the two-week time frame for 37% of participants attending both core sessions. Out of a potential 138 primary and secondary outcome responses at T0, T1 and T2, there were 13 missing primary outcome responses and 27 missing secondary outcome responses. Results indicated improvements in all measures except disability at either T1 or T2, or both, with confidence intervals supporting an interpretation of improvement. Conclusion  We were able to design and deliver FREE-IA training to RHPs, deliver FREE-IA sessions to patients, and collect outcomes at three time points with low levels of attrition. Outcomes in all measures except disability were in a direction to suggest improvement at T1, T2, or both. Study numbers were small, there was no control group and regression to the mean was a possibility. However, outcomes were in the direction to cautiously suggest benefit, and there is evidence of promise of the intervention. A definitive RCT is the next step to test clinical and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Disclosure  S. Bridgewater: None. J. Lomax: None. B. Abbott: None. J. Adams: None. A. Berry: None. S. Creanor: None. P. Ewings: None. S. Hewlett: None. L. McCracken: None. M. Ndosi: None. J. Thorn: None. M. Urban: None. E. Dures: None.

Objectives We developed a brief cognitive-behavioural, one-to-one intervention to reduce fatigue impact for patients with inflammatory arthritis. This qualitative process evaluation explored intervention acceptability and potential refinements from the perspective of (i) patients who attended sessions and (ii) rheumatology health professionals (RHPs) who delivered the intervention. Methods Interviews were conducted with patients and RHPs from five NHS sites. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Twenty-two patients and eleven RHPs participated. Patient themes Collaborative, non-judgemental consultations: patients valued having space to reflect, where their fatigue was validated. Relevant content, but not ground-breaking: patients appreciated the opportunity to tailor content to individual priorities. Daily diaries were useful to visualise fatigue. Self-awareness: patients reported increased acceptance, sense of control, and confidence to manage fatigue. Degrees of openness to change: sessions prompted patients to engage in behaviour change. For some, complicated lives made it difficult to plan for change. RHP themes Engagement with intervention: RHPs liked training face-to-face, and sessions were more enjoyable with experience of delivery. Research versuss clinical practice: RHPs expressed concern about fitting sessions into NHS clinic appointments. It was difficult to offer follow-up sessions within two-weeks. Collaborating with patients: RHPs reported that patients engaged with the tools and strategies. Some RHPs followed the manual in a linear way, others used it flexibly. Conclusions There is potential for this brief fatigue intervention to benefit patients. Future research will focus on flexibility to fit with local services and creating educational resources to use in a range of contexts. Lay summary What does this mean for patients? This purpose of this study was to find out what patients and health professionals thought about taking part in fatigue management sessions for people with inflammatory arthritis. We discussed the sessions with 22 patients who attended sessions, and eight health professionals who were trained in and delivered the sessions. Patients told us that they liked having an opportunity to talk about their fatigue. Although the information was not always new, they liked the resources, including the daily diaries. Sessions made them think about things in their day-to-day lives that might be making their fatigue worse. For some, it gave them ideas about things to change or do differently. Health professionals liked training with other health professionals and felt more confident about the fatigue sessions with practise. Some were using the fatigue information and resources in their usual consultations. Sometimes it was difficult to make sure everyone had enough time, and to fit in all the appointments within the recommended two-week time frame. The results show that patients value the opportunity to address their fatigue with a health professional, but also the challenges of providing these sessions in clinical practice.

Background/Aims  Patients with inflammatory arthritis report fatigue as a primary symptom that affects everyday life. FREE-IA (Fatigue - Reducing its Effects through individualised support Episodes in Inflammatory Arthritis) is a feasibility study of a brief intervention (2-4 sessions of 20-30 minutes) designed to reduce fatigue impact. The intervention designed with patients and health professionals is delivered by rheumatology practitioners in one-to-one sessions, after training and using a manual. The aim of this process evaluation was to understand the perspectives of patients and practitioners in FREE-IA. Methods  One-to-one telephone interviews were conducted with patients who had received the intervention and practitioners who had delivered it. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and anonymised. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify and analyse patterns within each data set. Results  Twenty-two patients, and eight practitioners across the five sites participated. We identified four patient and three practitioner themes. Patient themes: Collaborative, non-judgemental consultations: participants reported positive relationships in which their fatigue was validated, and they were able to reflect. They expressed their preference for a responsive, flexible approach to sessions, rather than a rigid, ‘protocolised’ approach. Relevant and useful, but not ground-breaking: participants appreciated the opportunity to tailor content to their individual priorities. They found it helpful to visualise fatigue and identified daily dairies as useful. Although the content was not seen as ground-breaking, it provided focus. Insights and self-awareness: sessions increased participants’ awareness of lifestyle factors and patterns influencing their fatigue, which increased their sense of control and confidence to manage fatigue. Degrees of openness to change: sessions prompted some participants to engage in positive behaviour change or make plans for changes. However, some participants expressed frustration, explaining that it was not the right time because their lives were complicated. Practitioner themes: Engagement with the intervention: practitioners liked training face-to-face with peers and their enjoyment of the intervention increased with experience of delivery. However, for practitioners with extensive experience of providing fatigue support, the low level of treatment intensity and the manualised approach limited the perceived usefulness of the intervention. Research versus clinical practice: practitioners expressed concern about fitting sessions into clinic appointments, and it was often a challenge to offer patients a follow-up session within the proposed two-week time frame. Collaborating with patients: practitioners reported that many patients were willing to try the tools and strategies. While some practitioners followed the manual in a linear way, others used it more flexibly. Conclusion  There is potential for this brief fatigue intervention to benefit patients. Future research will focus on flexibility to fit with local services and creating educational learning resources for practitioners to use in a range of contexts. Disclosure  A. Berry: None. S. Bridgewater: None. B. Abbott: None. J. Adams: None. E. Dures: None.

ObjectivesPatients with inflammatory arthritis report that fatigue is challenging to manage. We developed a manualised, one-to-one, cognitive–behavioural intervention, delivered by rheumatology health professionals (RHPs). The Fatigue - Reducing its Effects through individualised support Episodes in Inflammatory Arthritis (FREE-IA) study tested the feasibility of RHP training, intervention delivery and outcome collection ahead of a potential trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.MethodsIn this single-arm feasibility study, eligible patients were ≥18 years, had a clinician-confirmed diagnosis of an inflammatory arthritis and scored ≥6/10 on the Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue (BRAF) Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Fatigue Effect. Following training, RHPs delivered two to four sessions to participants. Baseline data were collected before the first session (T0) and outcomes at 6 weeks (T1) and 6 months (T2). The proposed primary outcome was fatigue impact (BRAF NRS Fatigue Effect). Secondary outcomes included fatigue severity and coping, disease impact and disability, and measures of therapeutic mechanism (self-efficacy and confidence to manage health).ResultsEight RHPs at five hospitals delivered 113 sessions to 46 participants. Of a potential 138 primary and secondary outcome responses at T0, T1 and T2, there were 13 (9.4%) and 27 (19.6%) missing primary and secondary outcome responses, respectively. Results indicated improvements in all measures except disability, at either T1 or T2, or both.ConclusionsThis study showed it was feasible to deliver the intervention, including training RHPs, and recruit and follow-up participants with high retention. While there was no control group, observed within-group improvements suggest potential promise of the intervention and support for a definitive trial to test effectiveness.