Percorrer por autor "Carmona, Loreto"
A mostrar 1 - 3 de 3
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- EULAR points to consider for patient education in physical activity and self-management of pain during transitional carePublication . Courel-Ibáñez, Javier; Prieto-Moreno, Rafael; Briones-Vozmediano, Erica; Ariza-Vega, Patrocinio; Angevare, Saskya; Anton, Jordi; Bini, Ilaria; Clemente, Daniel; Correia, Matilde; Costello, Wendy; De Cock, Diederik; Domján, Andrea; Leon, Leticia; Marques, Andréa; Minden, Kirsten; Mourão, Ana Filipa; Najm, Aurélie; Ozen, Seza; Pimentel, Georgina; Saleem, Zainab; Vetrovsky, Tomas; Wulffraat, Nico M.; Crovato, Andrea Zacarias; Prior, Yeliz; Carmona, Loreto; Estévez-López, FernandoObjectives A EULAR task force was convened to develop points to consider (PtC) for patient education in physical activity and self-management of pain in young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases during transitional care. Methods A task force of 26 people from 10 European countries followed the EULAR Standardised Operating Procedures to establish overarching principles (OAPs) and PtC based on a literature review and expert consensus. Level of evidence (LoE), grade of recommendation (GoR) and level of agreement (LoA) were determined. Results Two OAPs and seven PtC were formulated. The OAPs highlight the importance of personalised transitional care in rheumatology, ideally based on shared decision-making and incorporate interactive education to empower young individuals in managing their physical activity and pain. The PtC emphasise the clinical importance of patient education in these areas to improve readiness to transfer from paediatric to adult care. For two PtC, the GoR was moderate (grade B), based on individual cohort study (LoE 2b). For the remaining five PtC, the GoR was weak (grade D), based on expert opinion (LoE 5). The LoA among the task force was high, ranging from 9.4 to 9.8, except for one PtC that was 8.7. Conclusion These EULAR PtC establish guidance on best practices for delivering patient education in physical activity and self-management of pain during transitional care in rheumatology. The adoption of these PtC in clinical settings is recommended to standardise and optimise transitional care across European healthcare systems. Additionally, the task force expects that these PtC will drive future research and potentially shape policies across Europe.
- Presentation of the first international research network to foster high-quality clinical trials testing non-pharmacological interventions (TRACTION network)Publication . Ferreira, Ricardo J. O.; Henriques, Adriana; Moe, Rikke H.; Matos, Cristiano; Tveter, Anne-Therese; Osteras, Nina; Nogueira, Paulo; Costa, Andreia Silva; Haavardsholm, Espen A.; Carmona, Loreto; Richards, DavidClinical trials are essential for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new treatments and health interventions. However, while pharmacological trials are well-established, non-pharmacological trials face unique challenges related to their complexity and difficulties such as recruitment, retention, intervention standardisation, selection of outcome measures and blinding of clinicians, participants and data collectors. This communication paper describes the objectives, implementation steps and bylaws of the 'Trials foR heAlth Care inTerventIONs' Network (TRACTION), established by an international multiprofessional task force of experts to foster high-quality non-pharmacological research, ultimately improving patient care and healthcare outcomes.The TRACTION research network will provide information and resources through a collaborative hub for researchers, health professionals, patient research partners and stakeholders in diverse biomedical and healthcare areas, connecting people with different levels of expertise but with the same interests (eg, to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions, recruiting participants). This open network will support researchers in optimising trial design, participant recruitment, data management and analysis, and disseminating and implementing trial results.The network will also facilitate specialisation training and provide educational materials and mentoring.
- Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature reviewPublication . Sekhon, Mandeep; de Thurah, Annette; Fragoulis, George E.; Schoones, Jan; Stamm, Tanja A.; Vlieland, Theodora P.M. Vliet; Esbensen, Bente Appel; Lempp, Heidi; Bearne, Lindsay; Kouloumas, Marios; Pchelnikova, Polina; Swinnen, Thijs Willem; Blunt, Chris; Ferreira, Ricardo J. O.; Carmona, Loreto; Nikiphorou, ElenaObjective: To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. Results: Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.