Article Text

SAT0597 Course and Outcome of Rehabilitation Care in Different Rheumatological Diagnosis Groups. A Descriptive Study using the Star-Etic Registry.
  1. E. K. Lindqvist1,
  2. A. Bremander1,
  3. K. Hørslev-Petersen2,
  4. M. Grotle3,
  5. T. Vliet Vlieland and the STAR-ETIC group4
  1. 1Department of clinical sciences, Lund university, section of Rheumatology, Lund, Sweden
  2. 2King Christian Xth Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, University of Southern Denmark, gråsten, Denmark
  3. 3National resource center for rehabilitation in rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  4. 4Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands


Background In rheumatology multidisciplinary team rehabilitation is common and can be practised in both inpatient and outpatient clinical settings. Studies on the outcomes of rehabilitation in rheumatic conditions are scarce, with most research being focused on rheumatoid arthritis. So far research describing and comparing the effect of rehabilitation in various diagnosis groups using a similar set of endpoint measures is missing.

Objectives To describe the course and outcome of rehabilitation care in different rheumatological diagnosis groups.

Methods Multicenter prospective observational study in 4 north European countries (18 study sites) including patients with various rheumatic diseases admitted for in- or outpatient multidisciplinary team rehabilitation. Assessments were done at admission and discharge and included pain, fatigue (numeric rating scales, NRS (0-10)), physical functioning (Health Assessment Questionnaire, HAQ (0-3)) and Quality of Life (EQ-5D (0-1)). In addition, at baseline sociodemographic and health characteristics were recorded. Moreover, the setting and duration of the rehabilitation were registered. Changes over time were analysed and are presented as mean change with 95% confidence intervals (CI) based on t-distribution.

Results 1329 patients (Female (F) 944, mean age 57) were evaluated in the following diagnosis groups; Rheumatoid arthritis (n=442, F 337, mean age 58), Spondylarthropathies (n=326, F 174, mean age 50), systemic rheumatic diseases (n=120, F 102, mean age 58), unspecified arthritis (n=25, F 18, mean age 50), fibromyalgia/chronic pain (n=54, F 50, mean age 52), non inflammatory back pain (n=35, F 21, mean age 57) and osteoarthritis (n=129, F 115, mean age 62). 197 patients participated in rehabilitation post large joint surgery of which 181 (F 114, mean age 64) were diagnosed with osteoarthritis and the 16 (F 13, mean age 63) remaining patients had an inflammatory arthritis. In all diagnosis groups, patients improved significantly between baseline and the discharge with respect to pain, fatigue, HAQ and EQ-5D. The mean change in pain was -1,7 (CI -1,8; -1,6), in fatigue -1,6 (CI -1,7; -1,4), in HAQ -0,18 (CI -0,2; -0,15) and in EQ-5D 0,14 (CI 0,12; 0,16).

Conclusions Using a standardized framework across diagnosis groups we were able to demonstrate improvement after rehabilitation, with overall similar improvements within 10 rheumatological diagnosis groups. The use of similar endpoint measures in national registries is advocated.

Disclosure of Interest None Declared

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.