ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Variation in the feasibility and acceptability of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with inflammatory arthritis.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: While electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) can facilitate innovative, holistic care for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA), their implementation could inadvertently worsen health inequalities. This mixed methods study aimed to evaluate their feasibility and acceptability in routine care and how this varied by factors potentially impacting digital inclusion. Methods: Patients with IA were invited to complete ePROMs before/at their appointment on a National Health Service digital platform (Haywood Arthritis Portal). A cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted in consenting patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Acceptability was evaluated using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Survey responses were summarised descriptively. Statistical tests assessed global acceptability responses in relation to factors associated with digital inclusivity. Interviews were analysed using the Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction technique. Quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated. Results: A total of 336 patients and 11 HCPs were surveyed; 12 patients and 5 HCPs were interviewed. Patient surveys/interviews demonstrated high ePROMs acceptability (89% found ePROMs completely acceptable/acceptable; 89% felt they benefitted care). Acceptability was lower in those who were older ( Conclusion: While using ePROMs is feasible and highly acceptable to patients with IA and HCPs, acceptability is lower in patients who are older, less health literate and with lower digital skills/access. These factors require careful consideration in ePROMs implementation to avoid worsening health inequalities.
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.