ObjectivesThe family members of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of developing RA and are potential candidates for predictive testing. This study explored the perceptions of first-degree relatives of people with RA about being at risk of RA and engaging in predictive testing.Methods34 first-degree relatives (siblings and offspring) of patients with RA from the UK, Germany and Austria participated in semistructured interviews about their perceptions of RA risk and the prospect of predictive testing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFirst-degree relatives were aware of their susceptibility to RA, but were unsure of the extent of their risk. When considering their future risk, some relatives were concerned about the potential impact that RA would have on their lives. Relatives were concerned that knowing their actual risk would increase their anxiety and would affect decisions about their future. Also, relatives were concerned about the levels of uncertainty associated with predictive testing. Those in favour of knowing their future risk felt that they would need additional support to understand the risk information and cope with the emotional impact of this information.ConclusionsIdentifying individuals at risk of RA may allow targeted interventions to reduce the risk and consequence of future disease; however, relatives have concerns about predictive testing and risk information. The development of strategies to quantify and communicate risk needs to take these views into account and incorporate approaches to mitigate concerns and minimise the psychological impact of risk information.

Plain English summaryPatient and public involvement (PPI) improves the quality of health research and ensures that research is relevant to patients' needs. Though PPI is increasingly evident in clinical and health services research, there are few examples in the research literature of effective PPI in translational and laboratory-based research. In this paper, we describe the development and evaluation of PPI in a multi-centre European project (EuroTEAM -Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) that included both translational and laboratory-based and psychosocial research. We found that although most PPI in EuroTEAM was centred around the psychosocial research, there were examples of PPI in the laboratory studies. As the project evolved, researchers became better at accommodating PPI and identifying PPI opportunities. It was generally agreed that PPI had a positive impact on the project overall, particularly on public engagement with the research. We concluded that the inclusion of both psychosocial and laboratory-based research in the same project facilitated PPI across all aspects of the research. In future projects, we would try to specify individual PPI activities in more detail at the project-planning stage, and better accommodate patient partners who are not native speakers of English. AbstractBackground Patient and public involvement (PPI) enhances research quality and relevance and is central to contemporary health policy. The value of PPI has been recognised in rheumatology research, though there are limited examples of PPI in basic and translational science. The EU FP7 funded 'EuroTEAM' (Towards Early biomarkers in Arthritis Management) project was established to develop biomarker-based approaches to predict the future development of rheumatoid arthritis and incorporated psychosocial research to investigate the perceptions of 'at risk' individuals about predictive testing, and to develop informational resources about rheumatoid arthritis (RA) risk. Patient involvement was central to EuroTEAM from the inception of the project. The objective of this paper is to describe the development of (Continued on next page)

Objective Little is known about the experiences, values, and needs of people without arthritis who undergo predictive biomarker testing for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of these individuals and describe their information needs. Methods A qualitative, multicenter interview study with a thematic analysis was conducted in Austria, Germany and the UK. Individuals were interviewed who underwent predictive biomarker testing for RA and had a positive test result but no diagnosis of any inflammatory joint disease. Participants included patients with arthralgia and asymptomatic individuals. Information and education needs were developed from the qualitative codes and themes using the Arthritis Educational Needs Assessment Tool as a frame of reference. Results Thematic saturation was reached in 34 individuals (76% female, 24 [71%] with arthralgia, and 10 [29%] asymptomatic individuals). Thirty‐seven codes were summarized into 4 themes: 1) decision‐making around whether to undergo initial predictive testing, 2) willingness to consider further predictive tests, and/or 3) preventive interventions, including medication, and 4) varying reactions after receiving a positive test result. Individuals with arthralgia were more likely to be willing to take preventive action, undergo further testing, and experience psychological distress than asymptomatic individuals. All participants expressed the need for tailored, patient‐understandable information. Conclusion Individuals at risk of RA are currently the subjects of research aimed at developing better predictive strategies and preventive approaches. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to inform the future development of interventions combined with education.

Background: Research has been mainly focused on how to elicit patient preferences, with less attention on why patients form certain preferences. Objectives: To assess which psychological instruments are currently used and which psychological constructs are known to have an impact on patients' preferences and health-related decisions including the formation of preferences and preference heterogeneity. Methods: A systematic database search was undertaken to identify relevant studies. From the selected studies, the following information was extracted: study objectives, study population, design, psychological dimensions investigated, and instruments used to measure psychological variables. Results: Thirty-three studies were identified that described the association between a psychological construct, measured using a validated instrument, and patients' preferences or health-related decisions. We identified 33 psychological instruments and 18 constructs, and categorized the instruments into 5 groups, namely, motivational factors, cognitive factors, individual differences, emotion and mood, and health beliefs. Conclusions: This review provides an overview of the psychological factors and related instruments in the context of patients' preferences and decisions in healthcare settings. Our results indicate that measures of health literacy, numeracy, and locus of control have an impact on healthrelated preferences and decisions. Within the category of constructs that could explain preference and decision heterogeneity, health locus of control is a strong predictor of decisions in several healthcare contexts and is useful to consider when designing a patient preference study. Future research should continue to explore the association of psychological constructs with preference formation and heterogeneity to build on these initial recommendations.

No abstract