The experiences and perspectives of people with gout on urate self‐monitoring

AbstractIntroductionGout management remains suboptimal despite safe and effective urate‐lowering therapy. Self‐monitoring of urate may improve gout management, however, the acceptability of urate self‐monitoring by people with gout is unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of urate self‐monitoring in people with gout.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted with people taking urate‐lowering therapy (N = 30) in a 12‐month trial of urate self‐monitoring in rural and urban Australia. Interviews covered the experience of monitoring and its effect on gout self‐management. Deidentified transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants valued the ability to self‐monitor and gain more understanding of urate control compared with the annual monitoring ordered by their doctors. Participants indicated that self‐monitoring at home was easy, convenient and informed gout self‐management behaviours such as dietary modifications, hydration, exercise and medication routines. Many participants self‐monitored to understand urate concentration changes in response to feeling a gout flare was imminent or whether their behaviours, for example, alcohol intake, increased the risk of a gout flare. Urate concentrations were shared with doctors mainly when they were above target to seek management support, and this led to allopurinol dose increases in some cases.ConclusionUrate self‐monitoring was viewed by people with gout as convenient and useful for independent management of gout. They believed self‐monitoring achieved better gout control with a less restricted lifestyle. Urate data was shared with doctors at the patient's discretion and helped inform clinical decisions, such as allopurinol dose changes. Further research on implementing urate self‐monitoring in routine care would enable an evaluation of its impact on medication adherence and clinical outcomes, as well as inform gout management guidelines.Patient or Public ContributionOne person with gout, who was not a participant, was involved in the study design by providing feedback and pilot testing the semistructured interview guide. In response to their feedback, subsequent modifications to the interview guide were made to improve the understandability of the questions from a patient perspective. No additional questions were suggested.