Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOther Arthritides

Patient Perspectives on Outcome Domains of Medication Adherence Trials in Inflammatory Arthritis: An International OMERACT Focus Group Study

Charlotte L. Bekker, Sacha Bossina, Mary A. de Vera, Susan J. Bartlett, Maarten de Wit, Lyn March, Beverley Shea, Vicki Evans, Dawn Richards, Allison Tong, Peter Tugwell, Kathleen Tymms, Marieke Scholte-Voshaar, Ayano Kelly and Bart J.F. van den Bemt
The Journal of Rheumatology September 2021, 48 (9) 1480-1487; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.201568
Charlotte L. Bekker
1C.L. Bekker, PhD, Radboud University Medical Centre, Research Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Charlotte L. Bekker
  • For correspondence: Charlotte.bekker@radboudumc.nl
Sacha Bossina
2S. Bossina, MSc, Department of Rheumatology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary A. de Vera
3M.A. de Vera, Assistant Professor, PhD, Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Arthritis Research Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Mary A. de Vera
Susan J. Bartlett
4S.J. Bartlett, Professor, PhD, Department of Medicine, McGill University and Research Institute, McGill University Health Centres, Montreal, Québec, Canada, and Division of Rheumatology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Susan J. Bartlett
Maarten de Wit
5M. de Wit, PhD, OMERACT Patient Research Partner, the Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Maarten de Wit
Lyn March
6L. March, Professor, PhD, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Kolling Institute of Medical Research, and Department of Rheumatology, Royal North Shore Hospital, and Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beverley Shea
7B. Shea, PhD, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vicki Evans
8V. Evans, Adjunct Assistant Professor, PhD, BOptom, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dawn Richards
9D. Richards, PhD, Five02 Labs Inc., and Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dawn Richards
Allison Tong
10A. Tong, Professor, PhD, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, and Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Allison Tong
Peter Tugwell
11P. Tugwell, Professor, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Peter Tugwell
Kathleen Tymms
12K. Tymms, Associate Professor, MBBS, FRACP, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, and Department of Rheumatology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kathleen Tymms
Marieke Scholte-Voshaar
13M. Scholte-Voshaar, MSc, OMERACT Patient Research Partner, and University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Marieke Scholte-Voshaar
Ayano Kelly
14A. Kelly, Clinical Associate Lecturer, MBBS, FRACP, Department of Rheumatology, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, and South Western Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ayano Kelly
Bart J.F. van den Bemt
15B.J. van den Bemt, Professor, PharmD, Radboud University Medical Centre, Research Institute for Health Sciences, and Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bart J.F. van den Bemt
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective To describe the perspectives of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) on outcome domains of trials evaluating medication adherence interventions.

Methods Adult patients (≥ 18 yrs) with IA taking disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs from centers across Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands participated in 6 focus groups to discuss outcome domains that they consider important when participating in medication adherence trials. We analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis.

Results Of the 38 participants, 23 (61%) had rheumatoid arthritis and 21 (55%) were female. The mean age was 57.3 ± (SD 15.0) years. Improved outcome domains that patients wanted from participating in an adherence trial were categorized into 5 types: medication adherence, adherence-related factors (supporting adherence; e.g., medication knowledge), pathophysiology (e.g., physical functioning), life impact (e.g., ability to work), and economic impact (e.g., productivity loss). Three overarching themes reflecting why these outcome domains matter to patients were identified: how taking medications could improve patients’ emotional and physical fitness to maintain their social function; how improving knowledge and confidence in self-management increases patients’ trust and motivation to take medications as agreed with minimal risk of harms; and how respect and reassurance, reflecting health care that values patients’ opinions and is sensitive to patients’ individual goals, could improve medication-taking behavior.

Conclusion Patients value various outcome domains related to their overall well-being, confidence in medication use, and patient–healthcare provider relationships to be evaluated in future adherence trials.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • clinical trials
  • medication adherence
  • OMERACT
  • outcome and process assessment
  • qualitative research
  • rheumatic diseases

Optimal medication adherence is crucial for improved clinical and health outcomes.1,2 Medication adherence is defined as “the process by which patients take their medication as prescribed.”3 For rheumatic diseases, however, up to 85% of the patients do not fully adhere to their medication regimen.4,5,6Although numerous clinical trials have been conducted in rheumatology to improve medication adherence and thereby clinical and health outcomes, few have demonstrated meaningful improvements.7 Further, outcome domains and adherence measures included in studies on medication adherence are heterogeneous.8,9,10,11 There is an urgent need for consensus on a minimum core domain set that matters to patients that should be measured in each adherence trial to reduce inconsistent and selective reporting and improve comparison of interventions.12

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Adherence Working Group13 is currently developing a core domain set for trials of medication adherence interventions in patients with rheumatic diseases.14,15,16 The group consists of patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), researchers, and other stakeholders. Their activities comprise the following: (1) a systematic literature review of outcome domains in medication adherence intervention trials in rheumatology8; (2) interviews with patients and caregivers to identify their views on core domains; (3) nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to prioritize outcome domains17; (4) an international modified Delphi study to define a preliminary core domain set; and (5) a consensus workshop to finalize a core domain set.14 Within OMERACT, the patients’ perspective is central in developing relevant information on core outcome domains as the ultimate aim is to improve outcomes for patients.18 Hence, it is essential to study the patient perspective in depth to facilitate the development of a patient-centered core domain set for medication adherence interventions. This study aimed to describe the perspectives of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) on outcome domains of trials evaluating medication adherence interventions.

METHODS

Design and setting. We conducted focus groups with a descriptive explanatory design in Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands between September 2019 and February 2020.19 Focus groups were chosen as this enables in-depth discussion between participants and comprehensive data collection.20 Six patient research partners (PRPs) with IA were members of the Working Group and involved in the study design. COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guideline was used to guide the methods and reporting.21

Participants. Adult patients (≥ 18 yrs) with IA (i.e., ankylosing spondylitis [AS], psoriatic arthritis [PsA], rheumatoid arthritis [RA], undifferentiated IA) who were taking ≥ 1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and were proficient in the local language (English or Dutch) were eligible to participate in this study.

Eligible patients were invited to participate in a focus group. Patients were recruited either by clinicians (Australia, in 1 public hospital [Liverpool Hospital]), pharmacists (the Netherlands, in 1 specialized rheumatology clinic [Sint Maartenskliniek] and 1 academic hospital [Radboud University Medical Center, Radboudumc]) or through a research center (Canada, Arthritis Research Canada’s Arthritis Patient Advisory Board). Interested patients received study information verbally or in writing and were asked to complete a questionnaire with demographic and clinical variables, including age, sex, level of education, type of IA, duration of arthritis, and current DMARDs. Characteristics of participants were shared with all sites to allow for purposive sampling to ensure a heterogeneous group of participants across all focus groups.

Data collection. A question guide was developed with OMERACT working group members, including PRPs, based on their expertise with medication adherence and outcome domain research, and translated from English into Dutch by researchers (CLB, BJvdB, MSV) from the Netherlands. The interview guide was pilot tested in each language on comprehensiveness and interpretation by a patient with IA who was using a DMARD.

Using the question guide, participants were encouraged to discuss outcome domains that are important to them when participating in a study evaluating an adherence intervention. Participants were given examples of adherence interventions to facilitate the discussion (e.g., counseling program, electronic reminders). Items included were as follows: “what do you expect to achieve if you take your medication properly,” “which negative consequences do you foresee if you do not take your medication properly,” “what do you hope to achieve if you take your medication properly,” “what do you expect if you participate in an adherence intervention, both positive and negative,” “how do we know that an intervention will work on adherence,” and “what would be important to measure to see if it works on adherence?”

All focus groups were led by an experienced qualitative researcher; an assistant observed the discussion and took field notes. Focus groups were conducted in meeting rooms within a hospital or research institute and lasted approximately 2 hours. Discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Participants were offered travel reimbursement and a stipend to attend the focus group.

Data analysis. Potential trial outcome domains that were important to patients were extracted from the transcripts and categorized. To identify outcome domains that were important to patients, inductive thematic analysis was applied in an iterative manner by constantly comparing the data and analysis.22 First, 3 researchers (CLB, AK, SB) created a preliminary coding framework that was discussed with coauthors (BJvdB and AT) based on 1 transcript. Thereafter, the initial coding framework was applied to all transcripts, allowing for new categories and (sub)themes to be identified. CLB, AK, and SB read the transcripts to familiarize themselves with the data. Text fragments of meanings were identified and labeled with codes. These were grouped into categories and subthemes, and finally, overarching themes were explored. Each transcript was coded by 1 researcher and reviewed by a second experienced qualitative researcher (Australia: SB and AK; Canada and the Netherlands: CLB and BJvdB). Arbitrary codes were discussed until consensus was reached. Initial analysis of Dutch transcripts occurred in the local language. Identified categories and (sub)themes were translated into English (CLB). All results were merged and discussed until consensus was achieved on the final coding framework. Data were collected until data saturation, when no new themes emerged from subsequent focus groups.

Ethics. Ethical approval was obtained from local research ethics committees (Radboudumc, no. 2019-5525; South Western Sydney, local health district no. 2019/ETH12710; University of British Columbia, no. H19-04037). All patients gave written informed consent for participation.

RESULTS

Six focus groups were held (the Netherlands: n = 2; Australia: n = 3; Canada: n = 1), each with 4–10 participants. In total 38 patients participated, with RA (n = 23), AS (n = 11), and PsA (n = 8). Twenty-one (55%) were female and participants had a mean (SD) age of 57.3 (15.0) years. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of participants.

Patients discussed 5 types of outcome domains that they considered important when participating in an adherence trial. Some of these outcome domains were related to factors that might support adherence (placed in a category called “adherence-related factors”; e.g., medication knowledge, individualized support). Other outcome domains included improving medication adherence itself, and likely benefits of adherence such as improved pathophysiology (i.e., physical and psychological health), life impact (e.g., ability to work), and economic impact (e.g., productivity loss; Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Five types of outcome domains of a medication adherence trial that were important to patients.

We identified 3 overarching themes reflecting the reasons why these outcome domains matter to patients: protecting and enhancing emotional, physical, and social well-being; improving knowledge of and confidence in self-management; and respect and reassurance in care (Figure 1). Below we elaborate on these 3 overarching themes.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Schematic presentation of overarching themes reflecting reasons why outcome domains of medication adherence trials matter to patients. In the setting of an adherence trial, patients were most concerned with outcome domains related to their overall well-being. In addition, patients valued improved knowledge and confidence in self-management as well as respect and reassurance in care in relation to participation in adherence trials.

Protecting and enhancing emotional, physical and social well-being.

1. Motivated to maintain function. Patients valued health outcome domains in relation to a medication adherence trial as they felt embarrassed, humiliated, and exhausted with their pain and the lack of physical mobility that their condition caused. They also felt that their cognitive function deteriorated and was somewhat impaired; for instance, they felt depressed due to loss of physical function. Patients emphasized that taking medications could improve these aspects of their mental and physical fitness so that they were able to maintain their social function and ability to work.

· “It physically helps me, obviously, because it reduces my pain, my general well-being, everything. I’m a better person when I take that. My activities are normal like everybody else’s. Mentally as well, I feel like okay, I’m on track.” (F/30s/AS)

· “You have to follow a routine every day or every week or every month, take the medicine to make the goal, to improve your health or pain.” (F/40/AS)

Patients felt vulnerable and feared being dependent on others for care and financial support. Although medication adherence was linked to improved health, patients emphasized that health outcome domains fluctuated, often related to the timing and frequency of medication use, and that other contextual factors aside from their medications also influenced physical and psychological function.

· “Adherence is part of your lifestyle and so, how do you measure somebody’s lifestyle? You’ve got to look at the whole spectrum … You can’t, you can’t just hone in on adherence. You have to look at how was their lifestyle and see if there’s some change that you could ascribe to the intervention that you’re talking about. And that’s fairly tricky.” (F/34/RA)

2. Addressing low morale. Patients wanted an adherence trial to help them feel understood and supported because of the low morale they can experience from their medications. At times, some patients felt their medications were futile and left them depressed and anxious; they therefore lost the motivation and commitment to complete the recommended regime.

· “I think psychological is the biggest block to most people, your situation being one of them … You know I have to take this medication for how long? Am I gonna be on it for life? What’s it gonna do for me?” (F/48/RA)

· “I think the last thing is just ways to overcome any initial negative morale, so if you’ve been taking medication consistently and it doesn’t work, what then?” (M/30/AS)

Patients were not keen to discuss their disease and medications with their relatives for fear of judgment, lack of knowledge, and the absence of acceptance.

3. Balance between medication necessity beliefs and concerns. When participating in an adherence trial, patients wanted assistance with being able to better balance the perceived necessity of taking medication against concerns they had. Concerns related to medication use affected their confidence in therapy. Patients felt that medication adherence was needed to achieve a normal life, but they also expressed negative opinions as medication use induced anxiety about long-term safety and feared addiction to chemical products. Patients indicated that a positive attitude toward medications increased motivation to take them.

· “For me, understanding generally how it works in the body is a good motivating factor ‘cause I would know why I’m taking it and maybe, side effects, risks, expected duration of prescription. Because I was afraid of having to take this the rest of my life, so kind of like a psychological counseling to alleviate concerns with having to take the medication.” (M/76/PsA)

Improving knowledge of and confidence in self-management

1. Desire for knowledge. Patients valued increasing their medication knowledge as a result of participating in an adherence trial. They indicated that sufficient knowledge increased trust and confidence in their medication, enabled them to make deliberate therapy choices, and increased motivation to take medication as prescribed. In terms of being provided information about medications, patients wanted to be given accurate information at the time of diagnosis and regularly throughout the disease process, regarding the expected effectiveness of their medications. They also wanted information on a variety of treatment options to compare and choose from.

· “I’d want to know the benefits of taking the medication … What I mean is, what are the potential things to be aware of that may affect your consistency in how you take medication and ways to manage that?” (M/30/AS) 2.

Taking control with accurate medication use. Patients strongly preferred to make their own decisions and therefore wanted an adherence trial to help them take better control of their disease, especially when it came to medications.

· “The intervention could help me walk through a solution of how do I stay on track with my medications and keep my disease under control while I keep going through, you know, what I do in life.” (F/48/RA)

Patients acknowledged that long-term medication use is challenging, and they struggled to fit it into daily life. Patients valued the feeling that the medication was the best possible that would make them believe they were getting maximum benefits. Patients admitted to being less adherent with medications and blood test monitoring due to forgetfulness and/or busy lifestyles and were willing to get help to take their medications as prescribed. Patients wanted to be aware of what could affect medication adherence and the options to manage difficulties with adherence.

· “The question I think that a lot of patients have is if you miss a dose or if you stop taking it, like how quickly after that would you feel the effects of not taking it ….” (M/40/AS)

If patients were not adhering to their medications, they felt it would be important to know why this was occurring. Some patients experienced their overall well-being improving when they were nonadherent with their medications, thereby questioning the need for therapy, whereas others felt their disease progressing, emphasizing the need of being adherent.

· “My results are better without them, in some respects, when I’ve been a bit sloppy with my medications. Which is quite strange, because then you start questioning are my medications really working? And then you start thinking well, what if I didn’t need to take this or that?” (M/50/RA)

3. Equipped to minimize the risk of harms. Patients felt it was empowering to better understand unintended effects (e.g., side effects) of their medications in the setting of an adherence trial as this could affect their medication-taking behavior. They wanted to know short- and long-term side effects with regard to likelihoods and severity, as well as how to identify side effects.

· “My experience with RA is I’ve had more problems from side effects than I have from the disease itself.” (F/50/RA)

· “It would be good to know more about the likelihood of those things happening and how would you spot that? So yes, lymphoma is a risk, what are the signs of lymphoma? Because when it was happening to me, I didn’t even connect it with the medication.” (F/50/RA)

Patients preferred to know the actions that they need to take in the case of side effects, for example, by taking medications at night. Knowing about side effects could increase anxiety for some patients, and some preferred the option of not receiving information about possible side effects.

· “I just disregard [the potential side effects of medications] because I think I’ll probably get them anyway, so I’d rather not know.” (F/70/RA)

Respect and reassurance in care

1. Value in care. Patients valued HCP support to address adherence-related factors as part of an adherence intervention. They wanted their opinions to be acknowledged and felt ignored when objective tests conflicted with their subjective experiences.

· “One of the negative things would be judgment. When you have those times where you go, ‘it’s not working, I’m not right.’ And they’ll say, ‘but your blood looks good,’ and you go, ‘but I’m telling you, it’s not right.’ I guess you just want it to be a safe place where you can say, ‘yeah, I’ve had it, I don’t want to do injections anymore. When can I stop?’” (F/40/RA)

They wanted to feel able to ask questions, and to feel safe when disclosing nonadherence to their HCPs.

· “I hid from my doctor and the medications for like 6 months because I was scared of them. But it was really important to me when I came back to my doctor with the tail between my legs, and like ‘I’m sorry’ that I was met without judgment for doing that.” (F/56/RA)

2. Sensitivity to individual goals. When discussing outcome domains that were important to them, patients felt that HCPs were often focused on numbers, laboratory values, pain, and inflammation, which were not the most important things to patients. Fatigue was an example of something that influences daily function but was not addressed by their HCP.

· “Just communication with nurses would be sufficient for me when I feel bad … At one point I knew it was because of the medication while they said you can do whatever you want. But I’m not going, I know my own body. I said it is because of that. It felt undermining when they said it isn’t.” (F/67/RA)

Patients wanted their HCPs to enable them to achieve their unique role in society, and to understand individual goals, social expectations, and employment needs. In the setting of an adherence trial, patients wanted the adherence intervention to help them achieve goals that were important to them, and also for the intervention to be relevant and tailored to their individual issues. They indicated that the support one person needed could be very different from another individual (e.g., needing reminders, a phone contact for advice or injection support) and could change over time.

· “You also want to be able to achieve, just in general, your lifestyle goals because everyone’s different in terms of what they want to be able to do in their own life.” (M/30/AS)

3. Access in time of need. HCP and family support was an important outcome of an adherence trial to patients so they could access assistance in times of need, eliminating delays in care from someone with the knowledge and skills to offer the appropriate support. Patients felt secure having someone to call between appointments for medication advice when required, and for emotional support during difficulties with their medications.

· “I think the relationship is super important and when I was first diagnosed … Having that person there … knowing that there was somebody at the clinic that you could ask. Right, I think that’s important.” (M/40/AS)

4. Fears related to being in an adherence trial. Patients discussed potential disadvantages of participating in an adherence trial. Some patients feared acknowledging medication nonadherence in a trial might adversely influence their access to treatment outside the trial. They wanted to be able to have access to adherence interventions when required, at convenient times and places.

DISCUSSION

Overall, patients discussed that medication nonadherence could directly affect social participation and quality of life. As a result, patients valued improving adherence, which was supported by improving adherence-related factors such as medication knowledge, beliefs and concerns, and family and HCP support. These findings are in line with other quantitative and qualitative studies that raise similar influences on medication adherence in rheumatology, such as how the disease affects a normal life span,23,24 knowledge,25 beliefs and concerns,26,27,28,29 family support,28 and HCP support.28,30 While emotional, physical, and social outcomes emerged as relevant outcome domains from the patient perspective, most medication adherence studies report numerical health outcome domains such as joint counts, inflammatory markers, and bone turnover markers.8 Patients also discussed the importance of addressing outcome domains related to self-management capabilities and the patient–HCP relationship. These outcome domains have not been comprehensively evaluated in trials.8 Not measuring what patients consider important could lead to medication adherence interventions that comprise little support and potentially limited effectiveness from the patient perspective.

Our findings indicate that how patients feel and can function are ultimately what matters most to them. However, participants pointed out that understanding this in the context of an adherence trial is not straightforward. The benefit of medication can be influenced by the timing in relation to the drug, and other external factors (e.g., recent fall, weather). Thus, it is important to acknowledge the methodological limitations when measuring health outcome domains.

Adherence was an important outcome for many participants as this relates to their overall well-being. Some interesting comments from patients also included education on barriers for adherence and how to overcome them, the importance of checking what individual barriers were in order to understand the results of a trial, and that the need for adherence support differs greatly between one patient to another. Measuring and reporting adherence as an outcome is required to aim for a patient-centered approach to adherence trials.31

Some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the Canadian focus group included participants from a patient advisory board, who had greater awareness of trial design and the topic of medication adherence. Nevertheless, similar themes were identified across groups. Moreover, data analysis occurred in the local language and Dutch transcripts were not translated into English. However, results were carefully combined and discussed by multiple researchers to ensure that findings adequately captured all aspects. Last, selection bias may have occurred through self-selection of interested participants as well as recruitment from 3 countries.

To date, medication adherence interventions in rheumatology lack standardized, comparable outcome domains. Patients value various outcome domains related to their overall well-being, confidence in medication use, and patient–HCP relationships to be evaluated in future adherence trials. These results are a helpful step to guide researchers to measure relevant and consistent outcome domains. The next step is to generate broader consensus among international patients and other stakeholders in the development of a core domain set of patient-valued outcome domains for trials of medication adherence interventions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We thank all participants for sharing their perspectives in this study. We thank the larger working group members of OMERACT for their contribution to the overall body of work, as well as the PRPs for their input (Michael Gill and Ina Campbell).

Footnotes

  • This project was supported by a 2020 Arthritis Australia Project Grant (Marion A Simpson Grant funded by the Estate of the Late Marion Alice Simpson).

  • Accepted for publication May 10, 2021.
  • © 2021 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Waimann CA,
    2. Marengo MF,
    3. de Achaval S,
    4. Cox VL,
    5. Garcia-Gonzalez A,
    6. Reveille JD, et al.
    Electronic monitoring of oral therapies in ethnically diverse and economically disadvantaged patients with rheumatoid arthritis: consequences of low adherence. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:1421-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. van den Bemt BJ,
    2. Zwikker HE,
    3. van den Ende CH
    . Medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a critical appraisal of the existing literature. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2012; 8:337-51.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Vrijens B,
    2. De Geest S,
    3. Hughes DA,
    4. Przemyslaw K,
    5. Demonceau J,
    6. Ruppar T, et al; ABC Project Team
    . A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2012;73:691-705.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Scheepers L,
    2. van Onna M,
    3. Stehouwer CDA,
    4. Singh JA,
    5. Arts ICW,
    6. Boonen A
    . Medication adherence among patients with gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2018;47:689-702.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Murage MJ,
    2. Tongbram V,
    3. Feldman SR,
    4. Malatestinic WN,
    5. Larmore CJ,
    6. Muram TM, et al.
    Medication adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review. Patient Prefer Adherence 2018; 12:1483-503.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kothawala P,
    2. Badamgarav E,
    3. Ryu S,
    4. Miller RM,
    5. Halbert RJ
    . Systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world adherence to drug therapy for osteoporosis. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:1493-501.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Galo JS,
    2. Mehat P,
    3. Rai SK,
    4. Avina-Zubieta A,
    5. De Vera MA
    . What are the effects of medication adherence interventions in rheumatic diseases: a systematic review. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:667-73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Crimston-Smith L,
    3. Tong A,
    4. Bartlett SJ,
    5. Bekker CL,
    6. Christensen R, et al.
    Scope of outcomes in trials and observational studies of interventions targeting medication adherence in rheumatic conditions: a systematic review. J Rheumatol 2020;47:1565-74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Khan MU,
    2. Aslani P
    . A review of measures used to examine medication adherence in people with ADHD at initiation, implementation and discontinuation of pharmacotherapy. Res Social Adm Pharm 2020;16:277-89.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Srimongkon P,
    2. Aslani P,
    3. Chen TF
    . A systematic review of measures of medication adherence in consumers with unipolar depression. Res Social Adm Pharm 2019;15:3-22.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pednekar PP,
    2. Agh T,
    3. Malmenas M,
    4. Raval AD,
    5. Bennett BM,
    6. Borah BJ, et al.
    Methods for measuring multiple medication adherence: a systematic review-report of the ISPOR medication adherence and persistence special interest group. Value Health 2019;22:139-56.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Bartlett SJ,
    3. de Wit MP,
    4. Beaton DE,
    5. Dawson T,
    6. Evans V, et al.
    Addressing challenges in developing a core domain set in adherence interventions in rheumatology: a report from the OMERACT-Adherence group. J Rheumatol 2019;46:1202-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. OMERACT
    . About the Medication Working Group Adherence. [Internet. Accessed June 7, 2021.] Available from: https://omeract.org/working-groups/adherence
  14. 14.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Tong A,
    3. Tymms K,
    4. March L,
    5. Craig JC,
    6. De Vera M, et al; OMERACT-Adherence Group
    . Outcome Measures in Rheumatology - interventions for medication adherence (OMERACT-Adherence) core domain set for trials of interventions for medication adherence in rheumatology: 5 phase study protocol. Trials 2018;19:204.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Maxwell LJ,
    2. Beaton DE,
    3. Shea BJ,
    4. Wells GA,
    5. Boers M,
    6. Grosskleg S, et al.
    Core domain set selection according to OMERACT filter 2.1: the OMERACT methodology. J Rheumatol 2019;46:1014-20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Boers M,
    2. Kirwan JR,
    3. Tugwell P
    . The OMERACT handbook. Ottawa: OMERACT; 2016.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kelly A,
    2. Tymms K,
    3. de Wit M,
    4. Bartlett SJ,
    5. Cross M,
    6. Dawson T, et al.
    Patient and caregiver priorities for medication adherence in gout, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis: nominal group technique. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:1410-9.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Cheung PP,
    2. de Wit M,
    3. Bingham CO , 3rd,
    4. Kirwan JR,
    5. Leong A,
    6. March LM, et al.
    Recommendations for the involvement of patient research partners (PRP) in OMERACT working groups. A report from the OMERACT 2014 working group on PRP. J Rheumatol 2016;43:187-93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Sandelowski M
    . Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 2000;23:334-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Coenen M,
    2. Stamm TA,
    3. Stucki G,
    4. Cieza A
    . Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods. Qual Life Res 2012;21:359-70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Tong A,
    2. Sainsbury P,
    3. Craig J
    . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349-57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Braun V,
    2. Clarke V
    . Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol 2006;3:77-101.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lempp H,
    2. Scott D,
    3. Kingsley G
    . The personal impact of rheumatoid arthritis on patients’ identity: a qualitative study. Chronic Illn 2006;2:109-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. van der Elst K,
    2. Meyfroidt S,
    3. De Cock D,
    4. De Groef A,
    5. Binnard E,
    6. Moons P, et al.
    Unraveling patient-preferred health and treatment outcomes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a longitudinal qualitative study. Arthritis Care Res 2016;68:1278-87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Koneru S,
    2. Kocharla L,
    3. Higgins GC,
    4. Ware A,
    5. Passo MH,
    6. Farhey YD, et al.
    Adherence to medications in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Rheumatol 2008;14:195-201.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Nota I,
    2. Drossaert CH,
    3. Taal E,
    4. van de Laar MA
    . Patients’ considerations in the decision-making process of initiating disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Care Res 2015;67:956-64.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Carr AJ,
    2. Thompson PW,
    3. Cooper C
    . Factors associated with adherence and persistence to bisphosphonate therapy in osteoporosis: a cross-sectional survey. Osteoporos Int 2006; 17:1638-44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Morgan C,
    2. McBeth J,
    3. Cordingley L,
    4. Watson K,
    5. Hyrich KL,
    6. Symmons DP, et al.
    The influence of behavioural and psychological factors on medication adherence over time in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a study in the biologics era. Rheumatology 2015; 54:1780-91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Owensby JK,
    2. Chen L,
    3. O’Beirne R,
    4. Ruderman EM,
    5. Harrold LR,
    6. Melnick JA, et al.
    Patient and rheumatologist perspectives regarding challenges to achieving optimal disease control in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:933-41.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Salt E,
    2. Peden A
    . The complexity of the treatment: the decision-making process among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Qual Health Res 2011;21:214-22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Voshaar MJ,
    2. Nota I,
    3. van de Laar MA,
    4. van den Bemt BJ
    . Patient-centred care in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2015;29:643-63.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 48, Issue 9
1 Sep 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Patient Perspectives on Outcome Domains of Medication Adherence Trials in Inflammatory Arthritis: An International OMERACT Focus Group Study
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Patient Perspectives on Outcome Domains of Medication Adherence Trials in Inflammatory Arthritis: An International OMERACT Focus Group Study
Charlotte L. Bekker, Sacha Bossina, Mary A. de Vera, Susan J. Bartlett, Maarten de Wit, Lyn March, Beverley Shea, Vicki Evans, Dawn Richards, Allison Tong, Peter Tugwell, Kathleen Tymms, Marieke Scholte-Voshaar, Ayano Kelly, Bart J.F. van den Bemt
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2021, 48 (9) 1480-1487; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201568

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Patient Perspectives on Outcome Domains of Medication Adherence Trials in Inflammatory Arthritis: An International OMERACT Focus Group Study
Charlotte L. Bekker, Sacha Bossina, Mary A. de Vera, Susan J. Bartlett, Maarten de Wit, Lyn March, Beverley Shea, Vicki Evans, Dawn Richards, Allison Tong, Peter Tugwell, Kathleen Tymms, Marieke Scholte-Voshaar, Ayano Kelly, Bart J.F. van den Bemt
The Journal of Rheumatology Sep 2021, 48 (9) 1480-1487; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.201568
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

CLINICAL TRIALS
MEDICATION ADHERENCE
OMERACT
OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • The Problem of Pain in Rheumatology: Variations in Case Definitions Derived From Chronic Pain Phenotyping Algorithms Using Electronic Health Records
  • Use of Coordinator Role Improves Access to Rheumatologic Advanced Therapy
  • Safety and Healthcare Use Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among Adults With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Population-Based Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis
Show more Other Arthritides

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • clinical trials
  • medication adherence
  • OMERACT
  • outcome and process assessment
  • qualitative research
  • rheumatic diseases

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire