This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

45/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts. Cognitive impairments and disease burden on family and parenting were not recorded by PsA PRO instruments. The most commonly cited barriers to treatment were coverage ineligibility (51.6%) and high out-of-pocket expenses (31.7%). Patients often discussed physical and emotional implications of PsA in online platforms; some commonly used PRO instruments in PsA may not identify cognitive issues or parenting/family burden. Nearly one-third of patients with PsA reported access barriers to treatment.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Sunkureddi, P. R., Doogan, S., Heid, J., Benosman, S., Ogdie, A., Martin, L., et al. (2018). Evaluation of Self-reported Patient Experiences: Insights from Digital Patient Communities in Psoriatic Arthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.170500

Vancouver

Sunkureddi PR, Doogan S, Heid J, Benosman S, Ogdie A, Martin L, et al. Evaluation of Self-reported Patient Experiences: Insights from Digital Patient Communities in Psoriatic Arthritis. The Journal of Rheumatology. 2018. doi:10.3899/jrheum.170500. PMID: 29449495.

BibTeX

@article{sunkureddi2018-29449495,
  author  = {Sunkureddi, Prashanth R. and Doogan, Stephen and Heid, John and Benosman, Samir and Ogdie, Alexis and Martin, Layne and Palmer, Jacqueline B.},
  title   = {{Evaluation of Self-reported Patient Experiences: Insights from Digital Patient Communities in Psoriatic Arthritis}},
  journal = {The Journal of Rheumatology},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.3899/jrheum.170500},
  pmid    = {29449495},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.170500}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Of 15,390 narratives collected from 3139 patients with PsA for exploratory analysis, physical concepts were the most common (81.5%), followed by emotional (50.7%), cognitive (20.0%), role activity (8.1%), and social (5.6%) concepts.
Cognitive impairments and disease burden on family and parenting were not recorded by PsA PRO instruments.
The most commonly cited barriers to treatment were coverage ineligibility (51.6%) and high out-of-pocket expenses (31.7%).
Patients often discussed physical and emotional implications of PsA in online platforms; some commonly used PRO instruments in PsA may not identify cognitive issues or parenting/family burden.
Nearly one-third of patients with PsA reported access barriers to treatment.

Why it matters

This study analyzed online narratives from patients with psoriatic arthritis and found cognitive issues were discussed but not captured by standard questionnaires. It concerns psoriatic arthritis, not Alzheimer's disease, so it has no direct implications for treating, curing or preventing dementia.

Study details

Participants3,139
Effect size81.5%; 50.7%; 20.0%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 45/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Journal of Rheumatology)
Journal's citation record	1 / 4	The Journal of Rheumatology: journal h-index 137 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	3 / 4	3,139 participants
Effect reported	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 19 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	1 / 5	1.9 citations a year over 10 year(s) since 2018
Impact for its field and year	2 / 6	Cited 1.3× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	1 / 4	Cited 4 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	1 / 4	Last-listed author Jacqueline B. Palmer: h-index 18 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University of Pennsylvania: institution h-index 1,859 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 29449495)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	45 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery

Also in Health systems and care delivery

172 studies in the library are filed under Health systems and care delivery with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Health systems and care delivery hub.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →