Background Mobile health applications (apps) are available to enable people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) to better self-manage their health. However, guidance on the development and evaluation of such apps is lacking. Objectives The objective of this EULAR task force was to establish points to consider (PtC) for the development, evaluation and implementation of apps for self-management of RMDs. Methods A systematic literature review of app content and development strategies was conducted, followed by patient focus group and an online survey. Based on this information and along with task force expert opinion, PtC were formulated in a face-to-face meeting by a multidisciplinary task force panel of experts, including two patient research partners. The level of agreement among the panel in regard to each PtC was established by anonymous online voting. Results Three overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated. Three PtC are related to patient safety, considered as a critical issue by the panel. Three are related to relevance of the content and functionalities. The requirement for transparency around app development and funding sources, along with involvement of relevant health professionals, were also raised. Ease of app access across ages and abilities was highlighted, in addition to considering the cost benefit of apps from the outset. The level of agreement was from 8.8 to 9.9 out of 10. Conclusion These EULAR PtC provide guidance on important aspects that should be considered for the development, evaluation and implementation of existing and new apps.

There is growing concern that Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine fatigue will be a major obstacle in maintaining immunity in the general population. In this study, we assessed vaccine acceptance in future scenarios in two conjoint experiments, investigating determinants such as new vaccines, communication, costs/incentives and legal rules. The experiments were embedded in an online survey (n = 6,357 participants) conducted in two European countries (Austria and Italy). Our results suggest that vaccination campaigns should be tailored to subgroups based on their vaccination status. Among the unvaccinated, campaign messages conveying community spirit had a positive effect (0.343, confidence interval (CI) 0.019–0.666), whereas offering positive incentives, such as a cash reward (0.722, CI 0.429–1.014) or voucher (0.670, CI 0.373–0.967), was pivotal to the decision-making of those vaccinated once or twice. Among the triple vaccinated, vaccination readiness increased when adapted vaccines were offered (0.279, CI 0.182–0.377), but costs (−0.795, CI −0.935 to −0.654) and medical dissensus (−0.161, CI −0.293 to −0.030) reduced their likelihood to get vaccinated. We conclude that failing to mobilize the triple vaccinated is likely to result in booster vaccination rates falling short of expectations. For long-term success, measures fostering institutional trust should be considered. These results provide guidance to those responsible for future COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

Background: On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee declared the rapid, worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then, tireless efforts have been made to mitigate the spread of the disease and its impact, and these efforts have mostly relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines were demonstrated. The large social media platform Twitter has been used by medical researchers for the analysis of important public health topics, such as the public’s perception on antibiotic use and misuse and human papillomavirus vaccination. The analysis of Twitter-generated data can be further facilitated by using Twitter’s built-in, anonymous polling tool to gain insight into public health issues and obtain rapid feedback on an international scale. During the fast-paced course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Twitter polling system has provided a viable method for gaining rapid, large-scale, international public health insights on highly relevant and timely SARS-CoV-2–related topics. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the public’s perception on the safety and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in real time by using Twitter polls. Methods: We developed 2 Twitter polls to explore the public’s views on available COVID-19 vaccines. The surveys were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-February 2021, and Twitter users and influencers were asked to participate in and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience. Results: The adequacy of COVID-19 vaccine safety (ie, the safety of currently available vaccines; poll 1) was agreed upon by 1579 out of 3439 (45.9%) Twitter users. In contrast, almost as many Twitter users (1434/3439, 41.7%) were unsure about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Only 5.2% (179/3439) of Twitter users rated the available COVID-19 vaccines as generally unsafe. Poll 2, which addressed the question of whether users would undergo vaccination, was answered affirmatively by 82.8% (2862/3457) of Twitter users, and only 8% (277/3457) categorically rejected vaccination at the time of polling. Conclusions: In contrast to the perceived high level of uncertainty about the safety of the available COVID-19 vaccines, we observed an elevated willingness to undergo vaccination among our study sample. Since people's perceptions and views are strongly influenced by social media, the snapshots provided by these media platforms represent a static image of a moving target. Thus, the results of this study need to be followed up by long-term surveys to maintain their validity. This is especially relevant due to the circumstances of the fast-paced pandemic and the need to not miss sudden rises in the incidence of vaccine hesitancy, which may have detrimental effects on the pandemic’s course.

Objectives Fatigue is prevalent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and recognised as one of the most challenging symptoms to manage. The existence of multiple factors associated with driving and maintaining fatigue, and the evidence about what improves fatigue has led to a multifaceted approach to its management. However, there are no recommendations for fatigue management in people with I-RMDs. This lack of guidance is challenging for those living with fatigue and health professionals delivering clinical care. Therefore, our aim was to develop EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs. Methods A multidisciplinary taskforce comprising 26 members from 14 European countries was convened, and two systematic reviews were conducted. The taskforce developed the recommendations based on the systematic review of evidence supplemented with taskforce members’ experience of fatigue in I-RMDs. Results Four overarching principles (OAPs) and four recommendations were developed. OAPs include health professionals’ awareness that fatigue encompasses multiple biological, psychological and social factors which should inform clinical care. Fatigue should be monitored and assessed, and people with I-RMDs should be offered management options. Recommendations include offering tailored physical activity and/or tailored psychoeducational interventions and/or, if clinically indicated, immunomodulatory treatment initiation or change. Patient-centred fatigue management should consider the individual’s needs and preferences, their clinical disease activity, comorbidities and other psychosocial and contextual factors through shared decision-making. Conclusions These 2023 EULAR recommendations provide consensus and up-to-date guidance on fatigue management in people with I-RMDs.

Background Non-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment. Objectives The objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs. Methods An EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. Results Four overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients’ needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10. Conclusions These PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.