Health Observance | May 2026
Arthritis Awareness Month 2026: Build a reliable route from pain and limitation to participation
A research-led executive strategy for coordinated access, rehabilitation, shared decisions, equitable follow-through, and a life beyond the clinic.
Awareness matters when the route protects what people need to do
Arthritis Awareness Month gives healthcare executives a useful reason to examine a problem that is often divided into separate clinical, operational, and social pieces. A person may enter through primary care, urgent care, rheumatology, orthopedics, rehabilitation, pharmacy, or a community program. The presenting concern may involve pain, stiffness, fatigue, mobility, hand function, work, sleep, caregiving, or difficulty completing ordinary activities. The executive task is not to force every form of arthritis into one pathway. It is to make the right route understandable, timely, coordinated, and responsive to the person's priorities.
The evidence used for this brief spans osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and inflammatory arthritis. These are not interchangeable conditions. The studies also differ in population, setting, design, and purpose. Some evaluate implementation, others examine experience, access, function, or a specific intervention. The findings should therefore guide operating questions rather than become universal promises. Leaders can use them to identify common system responsibilities: clear entry points, early qualified assessment, conservative and rehabilitative options when appropriate, specialty access, shared decisions, communication, follow-up, and measurement of participation rather than activity alone.
Recent research shows how easily evidence-based care can become fragmented in practice. Danish general practitioners interviewed about knee osteoarthritis described inconsistent access to nonsurgical services, uneven referral knowledge, and structural barriers across sectors. The study involved only 12 clinicians and trainees, so it does not establish the prevalence of these barriers in other systems. It does show why leaders should not assume that a published guideline automatically becomes a dependable service route.[1]
A 2026 Delphi study offers a related operating insight. Rehabilitation experts reached consensus around a longitudinal, function-first pathway with comprehensive assessment, multimodal conservative care, structured reassessment, escalation for nonresponders, and explicit discharge planning. The work reflects expert consensus rather than measured patient outcomes, but it makes the missing infrastructure visible: a minimum outcomes set, a reassessment point, escalation criteria, and a defined transition out of the active pathway.[2]
Executives should define success in the language of daily life. A 2026 registry analysis of 1,177 people with inflammatory arthritis found progressively worse health-related quality of life and productivity across higher levels of functional disability. Because the analysis was cross-sectional, it cannot prove that disability caused every difference or that one intervention will reverse the pattern. It does support a broader scorecard: the route should measure function, activity, work, and quality of life alongside clinical and utilization measures.[9]
Do not measure an arthritis campaign only by reach. Measure whether people enter the right route, understand the plan, receive the next service, and remain able to participate in the parts of life that matter to them.
What the newest evidence changes for leaders
The current evidence points to an implementation problem, not simply a knowledge problem. Guidelines commonly emphasize education, exercise, self-management, and other conservative or rehabilitative options for appropriate people with osteoarthritis, yet local pathways may still route people through long waits, isolated referrals, or surgery-centered queues before those supports are accessible. A 2026 Finnish protocol illustrates the scale of change required. The investigators designed a hybrid implementation trial that begins with current-state data, professional and patient input, and a locally adapted model of care, then trains physiotherapists and evaluates fidelity, utilization, costs, and patient-reported outcomes over time. Because it is a protocol, it offers a method rather than outcome proof.[4]
An Australian knowledge-translation evaluation provides a concrete example of service redesign. Across three six-month cohorts totaling 563 people referred for knee osteoarthritis, the health service expanded advanced-practice physiotherapy capacity, improved links to community programs, and implemented a digital record system. Median waiting time fell from 114 days in 2022 to 45 days in 2023 and 46 days in 2024. More people were seen by advanced-practice physiotherapists, and a smaller share was listed for surgery. The study was observational, multiple changes occurred together, and the findings come from one public health service. Leaders should not claim that adding one role will reproduce the same result. The useful lesson is that specialist access can be redesigned by matching skill, decision rights, capacity, referral rules, and information flow.[3]
Not every well-designed support produces a clinically important change. In a 2026 exploratory randomized trial, 240 older adults with symptomatic hip or knee osteoarthritis and comorbid conditions received either a physical-activity pathway with telephone coaching, self-monitoring, and resource connection or an attention-control program focused on education. Differences in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity were not statistically or clinically significant, and most secondary outcomes did not differ. The study suggests that contact alone may be insufficient for people managing multiple constraints. An operating plan should therefore test intensity, tailoring, reach, adherence, and the actual barriers that stand between advice and participation.[8]
Rheumatoid arthritis evidence adds the importance of patient experience, communication, and caregiver support. A small 2026 online survey included 25 people with rheumatoid arthritis, 23 caregivers, and 13 healthcare professionals. Respondents reported limitations in daily activity, fatigue, treatment dissatisfaction, caregiver effects, knowledge gaps, financial constraints, and communication problems. The sample was small, self-selected, and descriptive, so the percentages are not population estimates. The study is still a useful prompt for leaders to include emotional, relational, and financial experience in pathway review.[5]
A four-clinic Japanese study of 80 people with rheumatoid arthritis found that an illustration-based patient-reported tool correlated with conventional measures and sometimes surfaced symptoms that were not captured by standard numeric responses. It does not establish that one tool belongs in every setting. It does reinforce a larger design principle: the pathway must make it easier for people to express fatigue, stiffness, pain, function, and priorities in ways that clinicians can understand and act on.[6]
Figure 1. Evidence chart
A redesigned consultation route coincided with shorter median waits
Source and denominator: Scarvell et al.; 563 patients across three six-month cohorts in one Australian public health service.[3]
Evidence boundary: This was an observational knowledge-translation evaluation. Advanced-practice capacity, referral connections, and a digital record changed during the study, so the chart does not isolate one causal mechanism or provide a universal benchmark.
Build a closed-loop route from first concern to a functioning plan
A reliable route begins with differentiation. Public content may raise awareness, but it cannot determine the cause of pain, swelling, stiffness, fatigue, or functional change. The receiving system needs an approved entry point, qualified assessment, and a way to direct people into the appropriate osteoarthritis, inflammatory arthritis, rehabilitation, urgent, or other diagnostic route. This distinction protects people from being placed into a generic program before the clinical question is understood.
At entry, capture more than a symptom score. Ask what the person is no longer able to do, what work or caregiving demands are affected, what prior care has been tried, what barriers make follow-through difficult, and what outcome would matter most. A function-first approach does not minimize pain. It connects pain and other symptoms to walking, dressing, preparing meals, sleeping, working, using transportation, exercising, and participating in family or community life. That information should travel with the referral instead of being repeatedly reconstructed.
The next stage is an accepted assessment with a visible owner. Referral transmission is not completion. The sending team should know whether the request was accepted, redirected, returned for additional information, or escalated. The person should know the destination and expected next contact. The receiving team should have criteria for urgency, specialty need, conservative management, rehabilitation, and reassessment. Where capacity is limited, leaders should make the allocation rules explicit and review who waits longest, who leaves the route, and who is repeatedly redirected.
Care planning should be shared and revisable. For many people, the plan may combine education, physical activity or exercise, occupational strategies, self-management support, medication decisions, rehabilitation, weight-related counseling when appropriate and respectfully offered, or referral for procedural or surgical evaluation. The plan should identify which elements are recommended for this person, who owns each element, what barrier could prevent completion, when progress will be reviewed, and what would trigger a different route. A list of orders is not a coordinated plan.
The final stage is durable follow-through. Discharge from a visit should not mean disappearance from the system. People need a practical way to report worsening function, new concerns, difficulty with the plan, medication or cost questions, or inability to access the next service. The system needs a defined response. Long-term conditions also require periodic review of work, home, mobility, mental well-being, and participation, because clinical stability does not guarantee that the route remains usable.
Figure 2. Process flowchart
Closed-loop route from a concern to a plan that protects participation
- Recognize and listenDocument symptoms, functional change, priorities, previous care, work or caregiver demands, and access barriers.
- Differentiate the routeUse qualified assessment to direct the person to appropriate primary, specialty, rehabilitation, urgent, or other care.
- Co-design the planAlign evidence, preferences, clinical judgment, available services, ownership, and a realistic next action.
- Deliver and adaptCoordinate treatment, rehabilitation, self-management, accommodations, and escalation as needs change.
- Verify participationReview completion, function, work, daily life, experience, equity, and unresolved barriers at a defined interval.
Source and denominator: Proposed executive pathway informed by rehabilitation consensus, implementation, primary-care, and patient-experience studies; no pooled denominator.[1][2][18][21]
Evidence boundary: This is a proposed future-state operating route. It is not a clinical protocol and must be adapted to local scope, policy, staffing, specialty capacity, and clinical governance.
Treat access, trust, and communication as clinical infrastructure
Access is not one appointment count. It includes geographic reach, affordability, coverage, transportation, digital access, language, disability accommodation, scheduling, referral acceptance, and the ability to act on a plan. A 2025 Alberta study used administrative data and network analysis to estimate travel time for people with rheumatoid arthritis. The median was 13 minutes for primary care and 34 minutes for rheumatology, but remote residents faced a median 226-minute trip to rheumatology compared with 26 minutes in metropolitan areas. The study covers one province and one period, and travel time does not capture every burden. It shows why a systemwide average can hide severe geographic inequity.[12]
Delayed access also reflects more than distance. A 2026 cross-sectional study of 308 adults with rheumatoid arthritis in northern Vietnam reported that most participants had waited at least three months before treatment. The model explained only 9.6% of variance, with small effects for health literacy and help-seeking. The authors explicitly called for broader structural, cultural, and service factors in future work. Leaders should take the limitation seriously: educational materials may help, but they cannot compensate for unavailable services, cost, unclear referral routes, or insufficient specialty capacity.[7]
Socioeconomic patterns require equally careful interpretation. A 2025 Austrian cross-sectional analysis included 9,256 adults, 289 of whom had rheumatoid arthritis. Lower education and household income were associated with higher rheumatoid arthritis prevalence, and people with rheumatoid arthritis had more unemployment and work disability. The design cannot determine causality or the direction of every relationship. It does tell executives to review who is missing from programs, who cannot sustain attendance, who experiences work disruption, and whether cost or administrative complexity affects completion.[14]
Trust and communication shape whether an accessible service becomes usable. A 2024 observational study identified a lower-adherence rheumatoid arthritis subgroup that was more affected by social determinants of health and reported less trust, poorer communication, lower satisfaction, more pain, fatigue, and anxiety. Clustering does not prove that improving trust alone will improve adherence, and the findings should not be used to label people as compliant or noncompliant. The executive implication is to examine the relational and structural conditions around medication and care decisions, including knowledge, cost, side effects, language, respect, and the opportunity to ask questions.[19]
Digital care can extend reach, but it is not a substitute for service design. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized trials found a small improvement in rheumatoid arthritis disease activity with e-health interventions, while evidence for pain, self-efficacy, and quality of life was low or very low and often not favorable. Leaders should avoid describing a portal or video visit as a proven solution to every access problem. Digital services need clinical integration, accessible design, support for digital literacy, privacy safeguards, and an alternative for people who cannot or do not want to use them.[20]
Figure 3. Qualitative fishbone
Where an arthritis route can become delayed or fragmented
- Entry and differentiationUnclear first contact, repeated assessment, missing referral criteria, or the wrong destination.
- Capacity and geographySpecialty shortages, long queues, distant services, limited rehabilitation, or inflexible scheduling.
- Handoffs and ownershipReferrals without acceptance, disconnected notes, no reassessment point, or unowned exceptions.
- Affordability and coverageOut-of-pocket cost, authorization friction, transportation expense, or unpaid time away from work.
- Communication and trustJargon, inaccessible formats, language gaps, poor listening, or uncertainty that is not explained.
- Daily-life constraintsCaregiving, fatigue, mobility, digital access, work demands, or a plan that cannot be sustained at home.
Effect: delayed, fragmented, or abandoned follow-through
Source and applicability: Qualitative synthesis of access, travel, socioeconomic, trust, primary-care, and pathway studies; categories are unranked.[1][7][12][14][16][19]
Evidence boundary: The branches organize plausible, evidence-supported contributors. Their size and order do not represent frequency, severity, or causal rank.
Build the human infrastructure around one accountable plan
Arthritis care crosses professional boundaries, but coordination does not happen merely because multiple disciplines are present. The operating model needs a central plan, an accountable clinical owner, role clarity, a method for accepting work, and a shared view of unresolved needs. The right configuration will vary by condition and setting. A person with suspected inflammatory arthritis may need rapid specialty evaluation. A person with established osteoarthritis may need primary-care management, rehabilitation, self-management support, and clear criteria for surgical or specialty consultation. The system must be able to distinguish and connect these routes.
Primary care often provides the first durable relationship, but it cannot carry the entire pathway without access to services and decision support. A 2023 scoping review identified 37 osteoarthritis models of care across 13 countries. Most were management programs, while others focused on the first consultation or integrated referral pathways. The review found frequent use of general-practitioner-led care, multidisciplinary care, and primary-care referrals, but many models were one-size-fits-all and few used explicit implementation or behavior-change frameworks. Effects on clinical outcomes were mixed. This supports local adaptation with patient involvement, provider training, individualized planning, and coordination across settings.[21]
Advanced-practice roles can improve flow when authority and service design are aligned. The Australian waiting-time evaluation described physiotherapists providing expert assessment and helping identify people who did not require surgical consultation.[3] The role should not be copied as a title without its operating conditions. Leaders need to define competency, credentialing, referral criteria, supervision, access to diagnostics, decision rights, documentation, escalation, and the relationship with surgeons, primary care, and community programs.
Community pharmacy can also be a meaningful access point, particularly where people seek advice before formal evaluation. Focus groups with 22 healthcare professionals in Nigeria found that pharmacies were often the first point of contact, while affordability shaped navigation and nonpharmacologic options and multidisciplinary collaboration were limited. Participants wanted professional education, national guidance, and a more unified pathway. The study is qualitative and context-specific. Its broader lesson is that every high-volume entry point should be connected to an appropriate assessment and referral route rather than left to operate as an isolated endpoint.[16]
Patient and caregiver voice belongs inside this system, not at the edge. A 2025 grounded-theory study used 16 interviews with eight person-supporter pairs across several countries and described how a chosen support person could share, expand, or complement the person's perspective. The sample was small and designed for theory development, not measurement. It still offers a useful governance rule: include a supporter only when the person wants that involvement, define the role, protect the person's authority, and do not treat the supporter as a substitute for direct communication.[13]
A multidisciplinary case-conference concept study likewise found that 11 people with osteoarthritis and eight clinicians saw potential benefits and manageable challenges in a primary-care model linking general practice, exercise physiology, dietetics, and nursing. Because this was a pre-pilot qualitative study, it does not prove effectiveness. It provides a practical design test: before scaling a model, ask both users and operators whether roles, information, timing, workload, and maintenance support are credible.[15]
Figure 4. Operating-system diagram
Six accountable interfaces around one participation plan
- Primary entryDifferentiate, assess, initiate, refer, and remain connected.
- Specialty careAccept the right referrals, make decisions, and return a visible plan.
- RehabilitationTranslate goals into function, adaptation, activity, and participation.
- Pharmacy and self-managementSupport understanding, medication questions, and sustainable daily action.
- Access and navigationResolve transportation, coverage, digital, language, and handoff barriers.
- Executive governanceAlign capacity, data, equity, finance, quality, and exception review.
Source and applicability: Proposed operating relationships informed by primary-care, multidisciplinary, pharmacy, access, communication, and implementation studies; no pooled denominator.[3][10][13][15][16][21]
Evidence boundary: The diagram proposes accountable interfaces. It does not imply that every organization already has these relationships or that one configuration suits every arthritis condition.
Measure completion, function, experience, and equity together
A decision-grade scorecard should show whether the route works from the perspective of the person, the operating team, and the organization. Volume measures remain useful, but they are not enough. A system can increase visits while leaving people in long waits, repeating assessments, or failing to complete rehabilitation. It can improve an average while rural, low-income, disabled, or digitally excluded groups fall further behind. It can record a referral as complete even when the receiving service never accepts the work.
Start with reach and entry. Define the eligible population, the approved entry points, the numerator, the denominator, and the exclusions. Measure accepted destinations rather than referral attempts. Review the time from first request to a clinically meaningful next state, but do not create one threshold for every condition or route. Urgency, specialty need, and local capacity differ. The useful governance question is whether the definition is explicit, clinically approved, and stratified enough to expose avoidable variation.
Add pathway reliability. Track whether a plan contains a named owner, agreed goals, pending work, reassessment, and escalation. Review no-shows or drop-off without treating them as patient failure. Examine whether transportation, cost, schedule, language, disability access, caregiving, or digital barriers contributed. The goal is to improve the route, not to punish people for being unable to use a poorly designed system.
Function and participation need equal standing. The 2026 inflammatory arthritis registry study demonstrates the relationship among functional disability, quality of life, and productivity across disability levels.[9] The rheumatoid arthritis hand-exercise trial also illustrates that accessible, home-based options can matter, while its small sample of 40 adults and specific setting limit generalization.[11] Use validated measures under clinical governance, but pair them with the person's own participation goal. A modest clinical change may still be meaningful if it supports work, caregiving, mobility, or independence.
Finally, pair performance with experience and equity. Ask whether people understood the plan, participated in decisions, knew whom to contact, felt respected, and could complete the next step. Review differences by site and protected local stratifiers only when the data are adequate and privacy is protected. Small numbers may require aggregation or qualitative learning. A dashboard is credible when it states what it cannot yet show.
Figure 5. Structured data table
Minimum definitions for executive arthritis-pathway oversight
| Measure | Operational definition | Denominator | Accountable owner | Review cadence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accepted route | Requests reaching the clinically appropriate primary, specialty, or rehabilitation destination within the locally defined interval | All requests meeting approved criteria for the selected pathway | Access and clinical pathway co-owners | Monthly |
| Plan reliability | People with goals, responsible roles, pending work, reassessment, and escalation documented | All people entering the selected managed cohort | Clinical pathway lead | Monthly |
| Service completion | Accepted rehabilitation, education, pharmacy, specialty, or community steps reaching a defined next state | All accepted steps in each reviewed queue | Receiving service owner | Monthly |
| Function and participation | Change in a validated functional measure plus progress toward one person-defined activity, work, or daily-life goal | People eligible for the selected measure with baseline and follow-up data | Rehabilitation and clinical leads | At reassessment |
| Experience and equity | Understanding, shared decisions, respect, barriers, and completion reviewed by site and protected local stratifiers | People eligible for the route with adequate, privacy-protected data | Experience, quality, and equity leads | Quarterly |
Source and denominator: Proposed governance definitions informed by pathway, access, function, communication, and model-of-care research; each row defines its local denominator.[2][3][6][9][12][19]
Evidence boundary: These are proposed operating definitions, not measured results or universal targets. Clinical leaders must validate measures, thresholds, inclusion rules, data sources, and privacy protections.
Connect public communication to an honest, usable destination
Public messaging should explain that arthritis is a broad family of conditions and that diagnosis and treatment decisions belong with qualified clinicians. Avoid using one prevalence statement, one treatment claim, or one patient's story to represent every form of arthritis. Do not promise that a particular exercise, medication, technology, or service will work for everyone. The page should help readers understand the next appropriate local step without turning awareness content into individual medical advice.
Every call to action needs a receiving system. If the organization invites questions, appointment requests, rehabilitation interest, pharmacy consultation, or digital support, define who receives the request, what information is collected, how privacy is protected, when the person can expect a response, and what happens if the concern requires a different route. Test the destination on mobile devices and with keyboard navigation, screen readers, zoom, captioning, language access, and people who have hand or mobility limitations.
Communication during care should make uncertainty and options understandable. The illustration-based rheumatoid arthritis study suggests that some people may express symptoms more fully when a tool offers more than a numeric scale.[6] Patient-reported tools should support conversation, not replace it. Teams need time to ask what the score means, how the condition affects daily life, and what tradeoffs matter to the person.
Caregiver or supporter participation should remain a choice. A supporter may help remember questions, describe changes, arrange transportation, or sustain a home plan. The person with arthritis should determine who participates and how. Communication systems should document consent, direct questions to the person, and avoid treating the supporter as the default proxy. This is especially important when fatigue, pain, language, or time pressure makes an appointment difficult.
For related leadership context, connect this observance with World Autoimmune/Auto-inflammatory Arthritis Day 2026, Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Month 2026, and National Interprofessional Healthcare Month 2026. Each link should deepen the operating question rather than substitute for a clear local destination.
A 90-day executive agenda
Choose one failure point that affects participation and can be observed within 90 days. Suitable scopes might include the route from primary care to rheumatology, access to evidence-based osteoarthritis rehabilitation, referral acceptance for advanced-practice physiotherapy, medication-cost communication, digital follow-up after discharge, or the completion of a function-based plan. Avoid launching a broad campaign with no defined population, owner, or denominator.
During days 1 through 30, reconstruct the current route. Review recent journeys from entry through the next meaningful state, including people who waited, were redirected, or did not complete the intended step. Listen to people with different forms of arthritis, chosen supporters, primary-care teams, rheumatology, orthopedics, rehabilitation, pharmacy, scheduling, access, technology, finance, and community partners. Document where responsibility becomes invisible and where the plan conflicts with daily life.
Define the baseline before testing. Specify the eligible population, current wait, accepted destinations, completion state, functional or participation measure, experience question, and equity stratifiers. Record data limitations. If the organization cannot distinguish a placed referral from an accepted referral, improving that data state may be the first intervention.
During days 31 through 60, test a small future-state route. Clarify entry criteria, referral content, acceptance, response time, decision rights, reassessment, and escalation. Provide the receiving team with enough capacity and authority to act. Test the design with people who have transportation, work, language, disability, or digital barriers. Use a short weekly exception review so blocked work remains visible while the pilot is small.
During days 61 through 90, evaluate reliability and unintended effects. Compare the baseline with the pilot while preserving the limits of the design. Review time, completion, function, experience, equity, staff workload, and new bottlenecks. Decide which elements should be standardized, revised, resourced, or stopped. Publish a concise learning brief that separates measured findings from interpretation and names the next owner and review date.
Figure 6. Gantt-style implementation timeline
Proposed 90-day sequence for one arthritis-pathway improvement
| Workstream | Days 1–30 | Days 31–60 | Days 61–90 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current-state route | Review journeys and open loops | Validate the future state with users and teams | Maintain the exception log |
| Ownership and capacity | Define entry, acceptance, roles, and decision rights | Test the route with protected capacity | Approve, resource, or revise the model |
| Access and communication | Identify geographic, cost, work, disability, language, and digital barriers | Test accommodations and alternatives | Review experience and equity |
| Measurement and governance | Define denominators and baseline | Monitor completion, function, workload, and harm | Report learning and assign the next review |
Source and applicability: Proposed implementation sequence informed by guideline-to-practice, pathway, access, and model-of-care studies; no measured denominator.[1][3][4][17][21]
Evidence boundary: This is a proposed administrative sequence. It is not a clinical timeline, tested intervention, or promise that a pathway will be fully implemented within 90 days.
Make participation the leadership standard after May
Arthritis Awareness Month should leave the operating system more usable than it found it. The most credible commitment is not a broad promise to eliminate every barrier. It is a measurable improvement in one route that matters to people living with arthritis and to the teams responsible for their care.
Start where the pathway is fragmented, slow, inequitable, or dependent on informal workarounds. Put the person, the appropriate clinical leaders, rehabilitation, access, operations, technology, quality, equity, finance, and community voices around the same map. Define the next meaningful state, not just the next transaction. Give the responsible team enough authority and capacity to close the loop.
Then return after 90 days. Report who entered the route, who completed it, how function or participation was assessed, what barriers remained, what the change required from staff, and where results differed. State the limitations. Improvement becomes trustworthy when leaders make progress visible without claiming more than the evidence supports.
The leadership standard is practical: people should not have to become the integration layer for a fragmented system while they are also managing pain, fatigue, mobility, work, and daily life.
Authoritative and related resources
- Arthritis Foundation: Arthritis Awareness Month
Official observance information, education, support, and opportunities to increase awareness during May.
- World Autoimmune/Auto-inflammatory Arthritis Day 2026
A related executive framework for communication, partnership, access, and accountable follow-through.
- Juvenile Arthritis Awareness Month 2026
A related leadership lens for readiness, family-centered navigation, access, and safety.
- National Interprofessional Healthcare Month 2026
A practical model for shared plans, role clarity, communication, and team-based care.
Scholarly references
- Trulsson, A. M. C., Risør, T., Reventlow, S., Skou, S. T., & Møller, A. (2026). General practitioners' perceptions and experiences of knee osteoarthritis management: A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to delivering guideline-recommended treatments. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 44(1), 2688368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2026.2688368
- Bascuñana-Ambrós, H., Trejo-Omeñaca, A., Cordero-García, C., Fuertes-González, S., Castillo-Martín, J. I., Catta-Preta, M., Ferrer-Picó, J., Monguet-Fierro, J. M., & Formigo-Couceiro, J. (2026). From real-world practice to an ideal rehabilitation pathway in osteoarthritis: A Delphi consensus on patient itineraries. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(8), 3047. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15083047
- Scarvell, J. M., Gilfillan, D., Stewart, T. J., McCrum, C. A., Fearon, A. M., Lynch, J. T., Ward, T., & Niyonsenga, T. (2026). Reducing wait-times for orthopaedic consultations for patients with knee osteoarthritis through advanced practice physiotherapy. Health Services Insights, 19, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329261461056
- Holopainen, R., Paukkunen, M., Liuska, J., Rauhansalo, E., Arokoski, J., Hautala, A. J., Heinonen, A., Vuoskoski, P., Booth, N., Multanen, J., Nikander, R., Karppinen, J., Aralinna, V., Simula, A. S., Kosonen, L. S., Toomey, C., Barton, C., & Skou, S. T. (2026). Implementing a guideline-based model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis in Finland (FIN-OA): Protocol for a benchmarking-controlled trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, 8(2), 100782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2026.100782
- Chaudhary, V. (2026). Rheumatoid arthritis exploratory survey: Voices of three key stakeholders (patients, caregivers, and health care professionals). Clinical Medicine Insights: Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/11795441261446975
- Fusama, M., Nakahara, H., Okada, M., Sakagami, K., Noguchi, I., Matsumura, H., Ito, H., Oda, K., Shinto, Y., Higami, K., Higami, S., & Tomita, T. (2026). Usefulness of the illustrated patient-reported outcome tool ‘Okomarigoto Sheet’ for symptom expression and communication in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. EULAR Rheumatology Open, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ero.2026.03.020
- Xuyen, T. T. N., Asdornwised, U., Muangchan, C., Puwarawuttipanit, W., & Chansatitporn, N. (2026). A model of factors predicting delayed access to healthcare services among people with rheumatoid arthritis: A cross-sectional study. Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research, 30(3), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.60099/prijnr.2026.277188
- Allen, K. D., Huffman, K. F., Callahan, L. F., Fullenkamp, N., Golightly, Y. M., Hales, D. P., Nelson, A. E., Ntim, S., Pathak, A., Rees, J., Vasa, R., Vu, M. B., & Cleveland, R. J. (2026). Osteoarthritis physical activity care pathway: Results of an exploratory trial. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, 8(1), 100724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100724
- Fuhrmann, A. C., Mosher, D. P., Benseler, S. M., Ocampo, W., Larché, M. J., & Marshall, D. A. (2026). From disability to daily life: Functional status, quality of life and work productivity in real-world inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatology, 65(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keag300
- McGarrity-Yoder, M., Insel, K., Crane, T., & Pace, T. (2026). Interdisciplinary rheumatoid arthritis research and patient care: An introduction and critique of the biopsychosocial model of disease experience in rheumatoid arthritis. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 20(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276241298937
- Ahmed, W. R., Mahran, S., Omar Ismail, M. E.-D., Aly, M., Hussein, A. H., Mostafa, N. M., & Kaushik, S. (2026). Land-based versus aquatic dynamic hand exercises on pain, hand function, and quality of life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Forum, 2026, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/nuf/1361415
- Liu, X., Patel, A. B., Seidel, J. E., Mosher, D. P., Hagens, J., & Marshall, D. A. (2025). Informing equitable access to care: A cross-sectional study of travel burden to primary and rheumatology care for people with rheumatoid arthritis. International Journal for Equity in Health, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02439-w
- Negrón, J. B., Lopez-Olivo, M. A., Carmona, L., Christensen, R., Ingegnoli, F., Zamora, N. V., Gonzalez-Lopez, L., Strand, V., Goel, N., Westrich-Robertson, T., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2025). The advocacy effect: A grounded theory study on the inclusion of caregivers or nearest support persons in research to better understand patient outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology International, 45(8), 188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-025-05943-y
- Ausserwinkler, M., Flamm, M., Gensluckner, S., Bogensberger, K., Paulweber, B., Trinka, E., Langthaler, P., Datz, C., Lindner, B., Iglseder, B., Aigner, E., & Wernly, B. (2025). Exploring the link between socioeconomic factors and rheumatoid arthritis: Insights from a large Austrian study. Annals of Epidemiology, 110, 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2025.07.025
- Miller, T. D., Bonney, A. D., Mullan, J. R., Metusela, C., & McGhee, D. E. (2025). A multidisciplinary case conference model to conservatively manage hip and knee osteoarthritis: A pre-pilot feasibility and proof-of-concept study. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 31(6), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY25207
- Adetunji, O., Alonge, I., Ayinmode, E., Owoyemi, T., Ogunbanjo, A., White, S., Adebajo, A., Mallen, C., Dziedzic, K., & Babatunde, O. O. (2025). Guideline-informed care for osteoarthritis: Support needs of community pharmacists and healthcare professionals in Nigeria, West Africa. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, 7(4), 100678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100678
- Miller, K. A., Baier Manwell, L. M., Bartels, C. M., Yu, T. Y., Vundamati, D., Foertsch, M., & Brown, R. L. (2024). Implementing an osteoarthritis management program to deliver guideline-driven care for knee and hip osteoarthritis in a U.S. academic health system. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, 6(2), 100452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocarto.2024.100452
- Mirt, P. K., Erjavec, K., Krsnik, S., Kotnik, P., & Hussein, M. (2024). A mixed-methods study of patient and healthcare professional perceptions of care pathways for knee osteoarthritis. BMC Primary Care, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02690-0
- Salt, E., Wiggins, A. T., Francis, D., Lohr, K., & Rayens, M. K. (2024). Patient trust, quality communication, and medication adherence in rheumatoid arthritis patients highly affected by social determinants of health. Musculoskeletal Care, 22(2), e1882. https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1882
- Zhou, L., Zhou, Y., Yu, P., Meng, F., Xu, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2023). Effects of e-health interventions on health outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 32(9–10), 1748–1759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16236
- Cunningham, J., Doyle, F., Ryan, J. M., Clyne, B., Cadogan, C., Cottrell, E., Murphy, P., Smith, S. M., & French, H. P. (2023). Primary care-based models of care for osteoarthritis: A scoping review. Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, 61, 152221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152221