BackgroundJuvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a chronic rheumatic disease. Patients suffer daily discomforts such as pain, fatigue, stiffness, and mood disturbances. Their exercise capacity is decreased to a variable degree and physical activity levels may be impaired. To prevent long-term cardiovascular risks associated with JIA and medication, it is important to encourage physical activity. To achieve this we developed Rheumates@Work (R@W), a combined internet-based and in person instruction model, an interactive, educational, and cognitive behavioral program. The aim of this study is twofold: to describe the theoretical background and design of R@W based on Pender’s Health Promotion Model, and to assess its acceptance.MethodsWe enrolled 8 to 13-year-old JIA patients, from 3 outpatients clinics in The Netherlands, in R@W. Inclusion criteria were a low disease activity (VAS physician <20 mm), comprehension of the Dutch language and absence of relevant co-morbidity. We assessed acceptance by measuring the participants’ commitment to the program, the level of interaction on patient’s initiative (f.e. mails send by the patient), technical aspects and satisfaction. Commitment was defined as the percentage of participants that completed the assignments and how much encouragement the participants needed for this. Satisfaction was measured with an anonymous questionnaire concerning f.e. time investment and perceived benefits. Costs were monitored.ResultsOf the 64 patients we enrolled, 23 boys and 41 girls, 93.8 % completed the program. Participant-initiated interaction was seen in 10.7 %, 24.7 % send a mail because of technical problems. Eighty-two percent of the participants and 99 % of the parents liked the program, and 85 % of the participants indicated that they had learnt something, or quite a lot. Development costs of the program were low.ConclusionThe HPM is suitable for a behavioral intervention program such as R@W. Acceptance and satisfaction of R@W were high and the costs of the program were low.Trial registrationTrial Number: ISRCTN92733069Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12969-015-0029-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction: In 2015 the historic Jones criteria for the diagnosis of Acute Rheumatic Fever (ARF) were revised introducing two different sets of criteria for low-risk and for moderate/high-risk populations (according to ARF incidence). In Italy the exact ARF incidence is unknown but small regional or local reports suggest an incidence of 2-5/100.000 per year, suggesting that our population might be considered at moderate risk for ARF. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of the revised Jones criteria in a retrospective population and to compare it with the performance of the previous version of Jones criteria. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study on 288 patients with ARF (108 female; median age 8.5 years, IQR 7.1-10.3) diagnosed from 2001 to 2015 in a Pediatric Rheumatology Division by pediatric rheumatologists, discharged with an ICD 9 code consistent with ARF. We retrospectively applied the two sets (for low-risk and for moderate/high-risk) of the 2015 revised Jones criteria and the 1992 version of the Jones criteria. Results: Of 288 patients, 253 (87.8%) met the 1992 version of the Jones criteria, 237 (82.3%) met the revised criteria for low-risk populations and 259 (89.9%) for moderate/high-risk populations. None of these differences was significant. Prevalence of major and minor criteria is shown in Table. With the exception of difference in arthritis, the 1992 version and the 2015 revised version did not show major differences. Of the 288 patients with a clinical diagnosis of ARF 29 did not meet any version of the Jones criteria. Patients in this group presented with isolated chorea or silent carditis without other manifestations. Prevalence of the clinical characteristics and comparison among the 1992 version of Jones criteria and the 2015 revised Jones criteria (low risk and moderate-high risk populations): Values are expressed in Number (percentage). *p value (Fisher Exact test) Conclusion: The revised Jones criteria for low-risk populations are slightly more sensitive than the 1992 version of Jones criteria, while the revised Jones criteria for moderate/high populations are slightly less sensitive than the 1992 version. In this population, the revised criteria did not substantially modify the diagnosis of ARF. Approximately 10% of patients presented with isolated chorea or silent carditis.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.