Background: Chronic rheumatic diseases need long-term treatment and professional supervision. Mobile apps promise to improve the lives of patients and physicians. In routine practice, however, rheumatology apps are largely unknown and little is known about their quality and safety. Objective: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of mobile rheumatology apps currently available in German app stores, evaluate app quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), and compile brief, ready-to-use descriptions for patients and rheumatologists. Methods: The German App Store and Google Play store were systematically searched to identify German rheumatology mobile apps for patient and physician use. MARS was used to independently assess app quality by 8 physicians, 4 using Android and 4 using iOS smartphones. Apps were randomly assigned so that 4 apps were rated by all raters and the remaining apps were rated by two Android and two iOS users. Furthermore, brief app descriptions including app developers, app categories, and features were compiled to inform potential users and developers. Results: In total, 128 and 63 apps were identified in the German Google Play and App Store, respectively. After removing duplicates and only including apps that were available in both stores, 28 apps remained. Sixteen apps met the inclusion criteria, which were (1) German language, (2) availability in both app stores, (3) targeting patients or physicians as users, and (4) clearly including rheumatology or rheumatic diseases as subject matter. Exclusion criteria were (1) congress apps and (2) company apps with advertisements. Nine apps addressed patients and 7 apps addressed physicians. No clinical studies to support the effectiveness and safety of apps could be found. Pharmaceutical companies were the main developers of two apps. Rheuma Auszeit was the only app mainly developed by a patient organization. This app had the highest overall MARS score (4.19/5). Three out of 9 patient apps featured validated questionnaires. The median overall MARS score was 3.85/5, ranging from 2.81/5 to 4.19/5. One patient-targeted and one physician-targeted app had MARS scores >4/5. No significant rater gender or platform (iOS/Android) differences could be observed. The overall correlation between app store ratings and MARS scores was low and inconsistent between platforms. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that systematically identified and evaluated mobile apps in rheumatology for patients and physicians available in German app stores. We found a lack of supporting clinical studies, use of validated questionnaires, and involvement of academic developers. Overall app quality was heterogeneous. To create high-quality apps, closer cooperation led by patients and physicians is vital.

Objective To analyse the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ and rheumatologists’ usage, preferences and perception of digital health applications (DHAs). Methods A web-based national survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology and the German League against Rheumatism. The prospective survey was distributed via social media (Twitter, Instagram and Facebook), QR code and email. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and regression analyses were performed to show correlations. Results We analysed the responses of 299 patients and 129 rheumatologists. Most patients (74%) and rheumatologists (76%) believed that DHAs are useful in the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and felt confident in their own usage thereof (90%; 86%). 38% of patients and 71% of rheumatologists reported that their attitude had changed positively towards DHAs and that their usage had increased due to COVID-19 (29%; 48%). The majority in both groups agreed on implementing virtual visits for follow-up appointments in stable disease conditions. The most reported advantages of DHAs were usage independent of time and place (76.6%; 77.5%). The main barriers were a lack of information on suitable, available DHAs (58.5%; 41.9%), poor usability (42.1% of patients) and a lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of DHAs (23.2% of rheumatologists). Only a minority (<10% in both groups) believed that digitalisation has a negative impact on the patient–doctor relationship. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic instigated an increase in patients’ and rheumatologists’ acceptance and usage of DHAs, possibly introducing a permanent paradigm shift in the management of RMDs.

Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. Methods: Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. Results: A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. Conclusions: The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.