English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Objective  This ethnographic market research study investigated the biologic initiation conversation between rheumatologists and biologic‐naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis to assess how therapy options, particularly mode of administration, were discussed.    Methods  Consenting rheumatologists (n = 16) and patients (n = 48) were videotaped during medical visits and interviewed by a trained ethnographer. The content, structure, and timing of conversations regarding biologic initiation were analyzed.    Results  The mean duration of physician‐patient visits was approximately 15 minutes; biologic therapies were discussed for a mean of 5.6 minutes. Subcutaneous ( SC ) and intravenous ( IV ) therapy options were mentioned in 45 and 35 visits, respectively, out of a total of 48 visits. All patients had some familiarity with  SC  administration, but nearly half of patients (22 of 48) were unfamiliar with  IV  therapy going into the visit.  IV  administration was not defined or described by rheumatologists in 77% of visits (27 of 35) mentioning  IV  therapy. Thus, 19 of 22 patients who were initially unfamiliar with  IV  therapy remained unfamiliar after the visit. Disparities in physician‐patient perceptions were revealed, as all rheumatologists (16 of 16) believed  IV  therapy would be less convenient than  SC  therapy for patients, while 46% of patients (22 of 48) felt this way. In post‐visit interviews, some patients seemed confused and overwhelmed, particularly when presented with many treatment choices in a visit. Some patients stated they would benefit from visual aids or summary sheets of key points.    Conclusion  This study revealed significant educational opportunities to improve the biologic initiation conversation and indicated a disparity between patients’ and rheumatologists’ perception of  IV  therapy.

Ethnographic Observational Study of the Biologic Initiation Conversation Between Rheumatologists and Biologic‐Naive Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients