ArticleRheumatology and therapy2026
Characterizing Adherence to a Mobile Health App for Patient-Reported Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in Rheumatology and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAdoption of mobile health applications ("apps") that collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical practice remains limited, and studies about patient usage preferences are lacking. Our aim was to characterize adherence to a PRO app designed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
methodsWe performed a post hoc analysis of a non-randomized trial of a PRO app for patients with RA seen at an academic medical center. The 12-month trial enrolled 149 participants with RA. The app collected one of four PROs every other day. We calculated adherence using two methods: (1) percent of PROs completed, and (2) time until app non-use. These calculations used different intervals for PRO completion and different periods of non-use to define adherence. We also investigated the association of potential predictors on the outcome using multivariable regression models.
resultsThe percentage of completed PROs was 43.5% (standard deviation, SD = 27.8) using a 2-day interval between PROs; this included all possible PRO questionnaires. Adherence was 68.0% (SD = 34.0) for any completion in an 8-day interval, and 77.3% (SD = 30.9) for a 32-day interval. In survival analyses, describing time until app non-use, the mean number of days until cessation was 153.8 days (SD = 94.1), defining non-use as ≥ 32 days without PRO completion and 152.3 days (SD = 95.8) for ≥ 64 days. We observed that older age and more frequent physician engagement with the PROs data were associated with greater adherence and increased time until cessation.
conclusionsAdherence to longitudinal PRO symptom reporting through an app was moderate and varied depending on how it was measured; the 8-day interval (approximately 1 week) is likely the most realistic expectation for patient completion of PRO symptoms. Adherence correlates with patient and physician factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.