Kim, Minchul

AbstractObjectivesTo compare pain intensity among individuals with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), other systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs), and without rheumatic disease (wAIDs).MethodsData were collected from the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study, an international cross‐sectional online survey, from December 2020 to August 2021. Pain experienced in the preceding week was assessed using numeral rating scale (NRS). We performed a negative binomial regression analysis to assess pain in IIMs subtypes and whether demographics, disease activity, general health status, and physical function had an impact on pain scores.ResultsOf 6988 participants included, 15.1% had IIMs, 27.9% had other AIRDs, and 57.0% were wAIDs. The median pain NRS in patients with IIMs, other AIRDs, and wAIDs were 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.0–5.0), 3.0 (IQR = 1.0–6.0), and 1.0 (IQR = 0–2.0), respectively (P < 0.001). Regression analysis adjusted for gender, age, and ethnicity revealed that overlap myositis and antisynthetase syndrome had the highest pain (NRS = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.5–4.5, and NRS = 3.6, 95% CI = 3.1–4.1, respectively). An additional association between pain and poor functional status was observed in all groups. Female gender was associated with higher pain scores in almost all scenarios. Increasing age was associated with higher pain NRS scores in some scenarios of disease activity, and Asian and Hispanic ethnicities had reduced pain scores in some functional status scenarios.ConclusionPatients with IIMs reported higher pain levels than wAIDs, but less than patients with other AIRDs. Pain is a disabling manifestation of IIMs and is associated with a poor functional status.

AbstractValue‐based health care requires a balancing of medical outcomes with economic value. Administrators need to understand both the clinical and the economic effects of potentially expensive simulation programs to rationalize the costs. Given the often‐disparate priorities of clinical educators relative to health care administrators, justifying the value of simulation requires the use of economic analyses few physicians have been trained to conduct. Clinical educators need to be able to present thorough economic analyses demonstrating returns on investment and cost‐effectiveness to effectively communicate with administrators.At the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference “Catalyzing System Change through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes,” our breakout session critically evaluated the cost‐benefit and return on investment of simulation. In this paper we provide an overview of some of the economic tools that a clinician may use to present the value of simulation training to financial officers and other administrators in the economic terms they understand. We also define three themes as a call to action for research related to cost–benefit analysis in simulation as well as four specific research questions that will help guide educators and hospital leadership to make decisions on the value of simulation for their system or program.