ObjectivesCurrent musculoskeletal outcome tools are fragmented across different healthcare settings and conditions. Our objectives were to develop and validate a single musculoskeletal outcome measure for use throughout the pathway and patients with different musculoskeletal conditions: the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ).SettingA consensus workshop with stakeholders from across the musculoskeletal community, workshops and individual interviews with a broad mix of musculoskeletal patients identified and prioritised outcomes for MSK-HQ inclusion. Initial psychometric validation was conducted in four cohorts from community physiotherapy, and secondary care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics.ParticipantsStakeholders (n=29) included primary care, physiotherapy, orthopaedic and rheumatology patients (n=8); general practitioners, physiotherapists, orthopaedists, rheumatologists and pain specialists (n=7), patient and professional national body representatives (n=10), and researchers (n=4). The four validation cohorts included 570 participants (n=210 physiotherapy, n=150 hip, n=150 knee, n=60 shoulder patients).Outcome measuresOutcomes included the MSK-HQ's acceptability, feasibility, comprehension, readability and responder burden. The validation cohort outcomes were the MSK-HQ's completion rate, test–retest reliability and convergent validity with reference standards (EQ-5D-5L, Oxford Hip, Knee, Shoulder Scores, and the Keele MSK-PROM).ResultsMusculoskeletal domains prioritised were pain severity, physical function, work interference, social interference, sleep, fatigue, emotional health, physical activity, independence, understanding, confidence to self-manage and overall impact. Patients reported MSK-HQ items to be ‘highly relevant’ and ‘easy to understand’. Completion rates were high (94.2%), with scores normally distributed, and no floor/ceiling effects. Test–retest reliability was excellent, and convergent validity was strong (correlations 0.81–0.88).ConclusionsA new musculoskeletal outcome measure has been developed through a coproduction process with patients to capture prioritised outcomes for use throughout the pathway and with different musculoskeletal conditions. Four validation cohorts found that the MSK-HQ had high completion rates, excellent test–retest reliability and strong convergent validity with reference standards. Further validation studies are ongoing, including a cohort with rheumatoid/inflammatory arthritis.

Plain English summaryIn the UK, more patients go to primary care than other parts of the health service. Therefore it is important for research into primary care to include the insights and views of people who receive these services. To explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research, we examined documents of 200 projects and surveyed 191 researchers.We found that about half of studies included PPI to develop research ideas and during the study itself. Common activities included designing study materials, advising on methods, and managing the research. Some studies did not undertake the PPI activities initially planned and funded for. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population. We found pockets of good practice: having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However, good practice was lacking in other areas. Few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress and included PPI to advise on publishing findings.Researchers reported beneficial impacts of PPI. Most impact was reported when the approach to PPI included more indicators of good practice. The main cost of PPI for researchers was their time. Many reported difficulties providing information about PPI.In partnership with PPI contributors, we have used these findings to develop:a new Cost and Consequences Framework for PPI highlighting financial and non-financial costs, benefits and harms of PPIFifteen co-produced recommendations to improve the practice and delivery of PPI.AbstractBackground: To improve the lives of patients in primary care requires the involvement of service users in primary care research. We aimed to explore the extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in primary care research.Methods: We extracted information about PPI from grant applications, reports and an electronic survey of researchers of studies funded by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research (SPCR). We applied recognised quality indicators to assess the quality of PPI and assessed its impact on research.Results: We examined 200 grant applications and reports of 181 projects. PPI was evident in the development of 47 (24%) grant applications. 113 (57%) grant applications included plans for PPI during the study, mostly in study design, oversight, and dissemination. PPI during projects was reported for 83 (46%) projects, including designing study materials and managing the research. We identified inconsistencies between planned and reported PPI. PPI varied by study design, health condition and study population.Of 46 (24%) of 191 questionnaires completed, 15 reported PPI activity. Several projects showed best practice according to guidelines, in terms of having a PPI budget, supporting PPI contributors, and PPI informing recruitment issues. However few projects offered PPI contributors training, used PPI to develop information for participants about study progress, and had PP...

BackgroundThe international literature on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research covers a wide range of issues, including active lay involvement throughout the research cycle; roles that patients/public can play; assessing impact of PPI and recommendations for good PPI practice. One area of investigation that is less developed is the sustainability and impact of PPI beyond involvement in time-limited research projects.MethodsThis paper focuses on the issues of sustainability, the importance of institutional leadership and the creation of a robust infrastructure in order to achieve long-term and wide-ranging PPI in research strategy and programmes.ResultsWe use the case of a Primary Care Research Centre to provide a historical account of the evolution of PPI in the Centre and identified a number of key conceptual issues regarding infrastructure, resource allocation, working methods, roles and relationships.ConclusionsThe paper concludes about the more general applicability of the Centre’s model for the long-term sustainability of PPI in research.

In a controlled study of older people living in sheltered housing (retirement housing), 24 people provided with telecare were compared with a control group of 28 people. The intervention consisted of second generation telecare equipment, such as automatic flood or falls detectors, a third generation lifestyle reassurance system and an Internet café. After a 12-month monitoring period, there was no noticeable change in the fear of falling. There was no significant difference for eight of the nine SF-36 domains. However, the Social Functioning domain showed a significant difference (P = 0.049), with scores 8% higher in the intervention group, suggesting a beneficial effect of telecare. Positive trends were also evident in areas such as an increase in the length of time spent out of the home, improved feelings of safety during the day and night, and a reduction in the fear of crime. The Internet café was used by 25% of people for at least 20 min per week. The results suggest that second generation telecare systems and Internet facilities could be more widely used in service delivery, but that lifestyle reassurance requires further development.

BackgroundThere is limited understanding of severity rating of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo evaluate the agreement between physician- and patient-rated severity of atopic dermatitis.MethodsData were collected from the 2014 Adelphi US Atopic Dermatitis Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with a history of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis; patients voluntarily completed a questionnaire. Current disease severity (mild/moderate/severe), based on personal judgment, was rated independently by patients and their physicians. The weighted kappa statistic identified level of agreement between physicians and patients. Bivariate analyses characterized agreement; multi-nomial logistic regression identified factors associated with discordance.ResultsOverall, 678 patients were included (369 [54.4%] were women, 525 [77.4%] were White, mean age was 39.3 years). Agreement was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.52): compared with physician ratings, patient-rated severity was higher in 76 patients (11.2%), lower in 137 patients (20.2%), and matched in 465 patients (68.6%). There were no differences in the rates of agreement between physician and patient ratings based on physician specialty (p = 0.6781), objective severity measures [Eczema Area and Severity Index score (p = 0.5308), percent body surface area affected (p = 0.9872), and current systemic immunosuppressant use (p = 0.9197)]. Multivariate analysis showed patients with a worse quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index) were more likely to rate a higher severity (relative risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.08; p = 0.0460). Physicians were more likely to rate a higher severity with a greater physician-reported sleep disturbance (relative risk ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.01–2.89; p = 0.0440).ConclusionsAlmost one-third of patients rated atopic dermatitis severity differently from their physicians, supporting the importance of the patient perspective in the severity assessment of atopic dermatitis and the need for greater communication between patients and physicians.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40257-017-0284-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.