Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Optimal care of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients entails regular assessment of disease activity and appropriate adjustment of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) until a predefined treatment goal is achieved. This raises questions about the approach to treatment decision making among RA patients and their preference for associated treatment changes. We aimed to systematically identify and synthesize the available evidence of RA patients’ preferences regarding DMARD modification with an emphasis on escalating, tapering, stopping, or switching of DMARDs.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken to gauge the breadth of evidence from the range of studies relating to RA patients’ preferences for DMARD modification. Pertinent databases were searched for relevant studies published between 1988 and 2019. Conventional content analysis was applied to generate themes about how patients perceive changes to their RA treatment.

Results

Of the 1730 distinct articles identified, 32 were included for review. Eight studies investigated RA patients’ perceptions of switching to other DMARDs, 18 studies reported RA patients’ preferences for escalating treatment, and six studies explored the possibility of tapering or stopping of biologic DMARDs. Four overarching themes relating to RA patients’ preferences for treatment modification were identified: (i) patient satisfaction, (ii) patients’ beliefs, (iii) information needs, and (iv) patient–clinician relationships.

Conclusion

Uptake of treatment changes in clinical practice can be improved by understanding how RA patients approach the decision to modify their treatment and how this relates to their satisfaction, beliefs, information needs, and relationships with clinicians. Future work is needed to systematically determine the significance of these factors in RA patients’ decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aletaha D, Smolen JS. Diagnosis and management of rheumatoid arthritis: a review. JAMA. 2018;320(13):1360–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Barton A, Burmester GR, Emery P, Firestein GS, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Dise Primers. 2018;4(1):18001. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2018.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Declerck P, Danesi R, Petersel D, Jacobs I. The Language of Biosimilars: Clarification, Definitions, and Regulatory Aspects. Drugs. 2017;77(6):671–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0717-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Smolen JS, Goncalves J, Quinn M, Benedetti F, Lee JY. Era of biosimilars in rheumatology: reshaping the healthcare environment. RMD Open. 2019;5(1):e000900. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2019-000900.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Burmester GR, Pope JE. Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet. 2017;389(10086):2338–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31491-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schipper LG, van Hulst LT, Grol R, van Riel PL, Hulscher ME, Fransen J. Meta-analysis of tight control strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: protocolized treatment has additional value with respect to the clinical outcome. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2010;49(11):2154–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keq195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vermeer M, Kuper HH, Hoekstra M, Haagsma CJ, Posthumus MD, Brus HL, et al. Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy in very early rheumatoid arthritis: results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort study. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(10):2865–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.30494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramiro S, Landewé RB, Van Der Heijde D, Sepriano A, FitzGerald O, Ostergaard M, et al. Is treat-to-target really working in rheumatoid arthritis? a longitudinal analysis of a cohort of patients treated in daily practice (RA BIODAM). Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(4):453–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schett G, Emery P, Tanaka Y, Burmester G, Pisetsky DS, Naredo E, et al. Tapering biologic and conventional DMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: current evidence and future directions. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(8):1428–37. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lenert A, Lenert P. Tapering biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic approach for clinical practice. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-016-3490-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibrahim SA. Patient preference as a barrier to needed care. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(4):613–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Desthieux C, Hermet A, Granger B, Fautrel B, Gossec L. Patient-Physician Discordance in Global Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review With Meta-Analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(12):1767–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. De Mits S, Lenaerts J, Vander Cruyssen B, Mielants H, Westhovens R, Durez P et al. A Nationwide survey on patient’s versus physician´ s evaluation of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis in relation to disease activity and route of administration: the Be-Raise Study. Plos one. 2016;11(11):e0166607. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Légaré F, Santesso N. Knowledge translation for patients: methods to support patients' participation in decision making about preference‐sensitive treatment options in rheumatology. Evid-Based Rheumatol. 2004; p. 41–62.

  15. Sidiropoulos P, Bounas A, Athanassiou P, Koutsianas C, Petrikkou E, Kaltsonoudis E, et al. Correlation of patient preferences to treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in Greece. Clin Rheumatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-020-05171-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zak A, Corrigan C, Yu Z, Bitton A, Fraenkel L, Harrold L, et al. Barriers to treatment adjustment within a treat to target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the TRACTION trial. Rheumatology. 2018;57(11):1933–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Burmester GR, Bykerk V, Dougados M, Emery P, et al. Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL, Akl EA, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(1):1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Bijlsma J, Burmester G, Chatzidionysiou K, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(6):960–77. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Durand C, Eldoma M, Marshall DA, Bansback N, Hazlewood GS. Patient preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2020;47(2):176–87. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.181165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ayano N, David T, Kathleen T, Allison T, Chandima P. Patients’ attitudes and experiences of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug use in rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis: Systematic review of qualitative studies. Intern Med J. 2016;46(Supplement 2):17.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bridges JF, Hauber AB, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser LA, Regier DA, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Joy SM, Little E, Maruthur NM, Purnell TS, Bridges JF. Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(10):877–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0089-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim C, Armstrong MJ, Berta WB, Gagliardi ARJHE. How to identify, incorporate and report patient preferences in clinical guidelines: a scoping review. 2020.

  25. Pham MT, Rajic A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(4):371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown T, Williams B. Evidence-based education in the health professions: promoting best practice in the learning and teaching of students. CRC Press; 2005.

  27. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacobs I, Singh E, Sewell KL, Sabbagh A, Shane LG. Patient attitudes and understanding about biosimilars: an international cross-sectional survey. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016;10:937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Frantzen L, Cohen JD, Trope S, Beck M, Munos A, Sittler MA, et al. Patients’ information and perspectives on biosimilars in rheumatology: a French nation-wide survey. Jt Bone Spine. 2019;86(4):491–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2019.01.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Aladul MI, Fitzpatrick RW, Chapman SR. Patients’ Understanding and attitudes towards infliximab and etanercept biosimilars: result of a UK Web-Based Survey. BioDrugs. 2017;31(5):439–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-017-0238-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Overbeeke E, De Beleyr B, de Hoon J, Westhovens R, Huys I. Perception of originator biologics and biosimilars: a survey among Belgian rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists. BioDrugs. 2017;31(5):447–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Waller J, Sullivan E, Piercy J, Black CM, Kachroo S. Assessing physician and patient acceptance of infliximab biosimilars in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis across Germany. Patient Prefer Adher. 2017;11:519–30. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S129333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Desplats M, Pascart T, Jelin G, Norberciak L, Philippe P, Houvenagel E, et al. Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study. Clin Rheumatol. 2017;36(6):1395–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3587-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chau J, Delate T, Ota T, Bhardwaja B. Patient Perspectives on Switching from infliximab to infliximab-dyyb in patients with rheumatologic diseases in the United States. ACR Open Rheumatol. 2019;1(1):52–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr2.1007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Teeple A, Ginsburg S, Howard L, Huff L, Reynolds C, Walls D, et al. Patient attitudes about non-medical switching to biosimilars: results from an online patient survey in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35(4):603–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1560221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Prothero L, Georgopoulou S, Galloway J, Williams R, Bosworth A, Lempp H. Patients’ and carers’ views and expectations about intensive management for moderate rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study. Psychol Health Med. 2016;21(8):918–25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin RW, McCallops K, Head AJ, Eggebeen AT, Birmingham JD, Tellinghuisen DJ. Influence of patient characteristics on perceived risks and willingness to take a proposed anti-rheumatic drug. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Hendrikx J, Kievit W, Fransen J, van Riel PL. The influence of patient perceptions of disease on medication intensification in daily practice. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2016;55(11):1938–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kew041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. van Hulst LT, Kievit W, van Bommel R, van Riel PL, Fraenkel L. Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: results of a maximum difference scaling experiment. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(10):1407–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20551.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Fraenkel L, Seng EK, Cunningham M, Mattocks K. Understanding how patients (vs physicians) approach the decision to escalate treatment: a proposed conceptual model. Rheumatology. 2015;54(2):278–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van Tuyl LH, Plass AM, Lems WF, Voskuyl AE, Kerstens PJ, Dijkmans BA, et al. Discordant perspectives of rheumatologists and patients on COBRA combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2008;47(10):1571–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ken323.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bolge SC, Goren A, Brown D, Ginsberg S, Allen I. Openness to and preference for attributes of biologic therapy prior to initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient and rheumatologist perspectives and implications for decision making. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016;10:1079–90. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S107790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Fraenkel L, Cunningham M, Peters E. Subjective numeracy and preference to stay with the status quo. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(1):6–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14532531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Raczkiewicz A, Juszkiewicz A, Tlustochowicz M, Tlustochowicz W. Polish rheumatologists and rheumatoid arthritis patients differ in their opinions about treatment inefficacy. Arch Rheumatol. 2015;30(3):238–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Martin RW, Enck RD, Tellinghuisen DJ, Eggebeen AT, Birmingham JD, Head AJ. Comparison of the effects of a pharmaceutical industry decision guide and decision aids on patient choice to intensify therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Decis Mak. 2017;37(5):577–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X17696995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lisicki R, Chu L. What matters to patients and physicians when considering biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Postgrad Med. 2008;120(3):154–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Funahashi K, Matsubara T. What RA patients expect of their treatment—discussion over the result of our survey. Clin Rheumatol. 2012;31(11):1559–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Fraenkel L, Cunningham M. High disease activity may not be sufficient to escalate care. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66(2):197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Takahashi N, Sasaki K, Nishiyama T, Naniwa T. Satisfaction and attitudes toward therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Mod Rheumatol. 2012;22(3):376–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10165-011-0531-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wolfe F, Michaud K. Resistance of rheumatoid arthritis patients to changing therapy: discordance between disease activity and patients’ treatment choices. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2007;56(7):2135–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Shaw Y, Metes ID, Michaud K, Donohue JM, Roberts MS, Levesque MC, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis patients’ motivations for accepting or resisting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment regimens. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(4):533–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Pasma A, van’ t Spijker A, Luime JJ, Walter MJ, Busschbach JJ, Hazes JM. Facilitators and barriers to adherence in the initiation phase of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use in patients with arthritis who recently started their first DMARD treatment. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(3):379–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nota I, Drossaert CH, Taal E, van de Laar MA. Patients’ considerations in the decision-making process of initiating disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67(7):956–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22531.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Hewlett S, Haig-Ferguson A, Rose-Parfitt E, Halls S, Freke S, Creamer P. Dose reduction of biologic therapy in inflammatory arthritis: A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions and needs. Musculoskelet Care. 2019;17(1):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Wallis D, Holmes C, Holroyd C, Sonpal K, Zarroug J, Adams J, et al. Dose reduction of biological therapies for inflammatory rheumatic diseases: what do patients think? Philadelphia : Taylor & Francis Ltd; 2019. p. 251–2.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Markusse IM, Akdemir G, Huizinga TW, Allaart CF. Drug-free holiday in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study to explore patients’ opinion. Clin Rheumatol. 2014;33(8):1155–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-014-2500-y.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Verhoef LM, Selten EMH, Vriezekolk JE, de Jong AJL, van den Hoogen FHJ, den Broeder AA, et al. The patient perspective on biologic DMARD dose reduction in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed methods study. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2018;57(11):1947–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/key205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Chan SJ, Stamp LK, Liebergreen N, Ndukwe H, Marra C, Treharne GJ. Tapering biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study of patient perspectives. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Outcomes Res. 2020;13(2):225–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00403-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Baker KF, Isaacs JD, Thompson B. “Living a normal life”: a qualitative study of patients’ views of medication withdrawal in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Rheumatol. 2019;3:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-019-0070-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Mooney GH. Economics, medicine and health care. 3rd ed. Harlow, England: Financial Times Prentice Hall; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Dougados M, Nataf H, Steinberg G, Rouanet S, Falissard B. Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2013;52(2):391–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kes285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wong PK. Medication adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: why do patients not take what we prescribe? Rheumatol Int. 2016;36(11):1535–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Donovan J, Blake D, Fleming W. The patient is not a blank sheet: lay beliefs and their relevance to patient education. Br J Rheumatol. 1989;28(1):58–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Neame R, Hammond A. Beliefs about medications: a questionnaire survey of people with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford, England). 2005;44(6):762–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh587.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Van Den Bemt BJ, Van Lankveld WG. How can we improve adherence to therapy by patients with rheumatoid arthritis? Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3(12):681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wabe N, Lee A, Wechalekar M, McWilliams L, Proudman S, Wiese M. Factors associated with medication adherence in a longitudinal study of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Int J Clin Pract. 2019;73(7):e13375. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Main CJ, Buchbinder R, Porcheret M, Foster N. Addressing patient beliefs and expectations in the consultation. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(2):219–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2009.12.013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Vanhaudenhuyse A, Gillet A, Malaise N, Salamun I, Grosdent S, Maquet D, et al. Psychological interventions influence patients’ attitudes and beliefs about their chronic pain. J Tradit Complement Med. 2018;8(2):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcme.2016.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. van Middendorp H, Evers AW. The role of psychological factors in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: From burden to tailored treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2016;30(5):932–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2016.10.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Neame R, Hammond A, Deighton C. Need for information and for involvement in decision making among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a questionnaire survey. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(2):249–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Barber N, Parsons J, Clifford S, Darracott R, Horne R. Patients’ problems with new medication for chronic conditions. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2004;13(3):172–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Meesters J, de Boer I, van den Berg M, Fiocco M, Vlieland TV. Unmet information needs about the delivery of rheumatology health care services: a survey among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;85(2):299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. von Thiele SU. Co-care: Producing better health outcome through interactions between patients, care providers and information and communication technology. Health Serv Manag Res. 2016;29(1–2):10–5.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kumar N, Abdullah K, Garg N, Pandey A. YouTube as a source of information on left ventricular assist devices. J Cardiac Fail. 2014;20(8):S84–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Courtney K. The use of social media in healthcare: organizational, clinical, and patient perspectives. Enabl Health Healthc ICT Avai Tail Closer. 2013;183:244.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kim SP, Knight SJ, Tomori C, Colella KM, Schoor RA, Shih L, et al. Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Cancer Invest. 2001;19(7):684–91. https://doi.org/10.1081/cnv-100106143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Martin RW, Head AJ, Rene J, Swartz TJ, Fiechtner JJ, McIntosh BA, et al. Patient decision-making related to antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: the importance of patient trust of physician. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(4):618–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Belcher VN, Fried TR, Agostini JV, Tinetti ME. Views of older adults on patient participation in medication-related decision making. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(4):298–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00329.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Sacristán JA, Dilla T, Díaz-Cerezo S, Gabás-Rivera C, Aceituno S. Patient-physician discrepancy in the perception of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Qual Syst Rev Lit. 2020;15(6):e0234705.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making—the pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Pablos JL, Jover JA, Roman-Ivorra JA, Inciarte-Mundo J, Dilla T, Sacristan JA et al. Patient decision aid (PDA) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis reduces decisional conflict and improves readiness for treatment decision making. Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Res. 2020;13(1):57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-019-00381-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Barton JL, Trupin L, Schillinger D, Evans-Young G, Imboden J, Montori VM, et al. Use of low-literacy decision aid to enhance knowledge and reduce decisional conflict among a diverse population of adults with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a pilot study. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(7):889–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Li LC, Shaw CD, Lacaille D, Yacyshyn E, Jones CA, Koehn C, et al. Effects of a web-based patient decision aid on biologic and small-molecule agents for rheumatoid arthritis: results from a proof-of-concept study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018;70(3):343–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23287.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Thelma Fisher, the subject librarian at Health Sciences Library, University of Otago for her assistance with the search strategy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo A. Marra.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This work was supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (18/776) and the University of Otago Research Fund.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Availability of data and material

The data supporting the findings of this scoping review was obtained from the literature. It is available within the article and its supplementary information files.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author contributions

JC, HY, GT, LS, and CM contributed to the study conception and design. Data collection, synthesis, and analysis were performed by JC and HY with critical input from LS, GT, and CM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 69 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, S.J., Yeo, H.Y., Stamp, L.K. et al. What Are the Preferences of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis for Treatment Modification? A Scoping Review. Patient 14, 505–532 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00488-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00488-7

Navigation