ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
Opportunities and challenges of digital health in rheumatology according to patients and professionals: a cross-sectional study.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Digital health is emerging as a powerful tool in rheumatology, yet routine implementation remains limited. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the needs and preferences of patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and rheumatology healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of digital health. Methods: We conducted 2 parallel online cross-sectional surveys, 1 targeting adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and another rheumatology professionals, featuring questions rated on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 = lowest and 10 = highest level of agreement) covering domains on contacting rheumatologists, app use, teleconsultations, digital health experience, digital assessment, app features, and impediments to digital health. Results: We analysed responses from 135 patients (86.7% women, mean age 48.6 ± 12.5 years) and 53 professionals (88.7% rheumatologists, 9.4% nurses). Overall, 24.7% of patients reported difficulties contacting their rheumatologist during flares, and disease-related app use was low (3.3 ± 2.6/10). More than half had limited digital health experience, and improving communication with professionals was the highest rated item regarding digital evaluation (8.1 ± 2.8/10). Among professionals, 75% considered digital health beneficial, but only 26.9% reported substantial training (≥7/10), and 53.9% reported minimal use of digital health tools (≤2/10). Treatment adherence showed the greatest agreement for remote monitoring (7.6 ± 2.2/10). Key barriers were poor integration of digital tools with electronic health records (EHR) (8.5 ± 2.1/10) and increased workload (7.7 ± 2.8/10), whereas lack of interest was the least relevant (5.1 ± 2.6/10). Conclusions: Patients and professionals show a high perceived value of digital health in rheumatology, but limited real-world adoption. Improving training, user-centred app design, and EHR integration may help bridge the gap between perceived usefulness and routine implementation.
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.