Positive impact of an intervention by arthritis patient educators on knowledge and satisfaction of patients in a rheumatology practice

Objective The goal of the study was to determine whether an intervention bya trained arthritis patient educator could have a positive impact onthe health status, knowledge, and satisfaction with services ofarthritis patients attending an ambulatory rheumatology care clinic byproviding education and support. Methods One hundred eight arthritis patients were randomly assigned to have anintervention by an arthritis patient educator as well as standardrheumatologic care (n = 47) or were assigned to the control groupreceiving only standard rheumatologic care (n = 61). Both groupscompleted the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 and the ArthritisSelf‐Efficacy Scale at baseline arrival to the clinic. After theappointment with the rheumatologist, each patient of the study groupmet with an arthritis patient educator. This session includededucational and social support. A week later this group of patientsreceived a followup telephone call from an arthritis patient educatorto determine whether the patient had unanswered questions or neededadditional support. Eight weeks later, both groups completed thebaseline questionnaire again, a basic arthritis knowledge test, and asatisfaction survey. Results Eight weeks after the interventions, basic knowledge scores, on ascale of 1 to 8, were significantly different for the study group andthe control group (6.48 ± 0.31 versus 5.35 ± 0.35,respectively, P = 0.02). A greater percentage of patients who receivedthe intervention by an arthritis patient educator was able to identifytwo of the educational resources available to them compared withpatients in the control group (92.6 ± 0.05% versus 64.50 ±0.08%, P = 0.015, 77.7 ± 0.08% versus 54.8 ± 0.09%, P =0.041). A greater percentage of persons in the active interventiongroup was also able to identify one self‐help aid compared with thecontrol group (88.8 ± 0.06% versus 67.74 ± 0.08%, P =0.028). Overall satisfaction with care was rated “good” or“excellent” more often by the study group when compared with thecontrol group (88.5 ± 0.24% versus 61.3 ± 0.32%, P =0.01). Of the study group, 69% found the session helpful, and 58%desired further interactions; 16% of the control group also requestedfuture appointments with the arthritis patient educators. Conclusion Arthritis patient educators can provide a meaningful and usefuladdition to traditional rheumatology care, positively affecting patientknowledge and satisfaction with clinic services.