Search

Background In the expanding era of e-health, a wide range of mobile health applications (apps) have become 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 a qualitative study with six patients and an online survey of people living with RMDs (n=394). Based on these data and expert opinion, the PtC were formulated in a face-to-face meeting in November 2018 by a multidisciplinary TF panel of experts, including patients, from 10 countries. 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 (Table). Out of the 10 PtC, three were related to patient safety (1,5,6), considered as a critical issue by the panel, along with accuracy of information provided by apps. Three were related to relevance of the content and functionalities (2,7,9) and the importance of apps being tailored to the individual needs of people with RMDs. The requirement for transparency around app developers and funding sources (3,4), along with involvement of relevant health professionals were also raised. Ease of app access across ages and abilities was highlighted (8), in addition to considering the cost-benefit of apps from the outset (10). The level of agreement was high (Table). Conclusion These PtC provide guidance on important aspects that should be considered for the development of new apps, the quality assessment of existing apps, as well as for further development of existing apps. As part of the dissemination phase, these PtC will be shared with a larger group of health professionals, patients and app developers and for wider consensus. Acknowledgement EULAR for funding this project Disclosure of Interests Aurelie Najm: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Marie Kostine: None declared, Christophe Richez: None declared, John Pauling: None declared, Axel Finckh Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer Inc, Consultant for: AbbVie, A2Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Pfizer Inc, and UCB, Valentin Ritschl: None declared, Yeliz Prior: None declared, Petra Balazova: None declared, Simon Stones Consultant for: SS has provided consultancy services to Envision Pharma Group, though this is not related to the contents of this abstract., Speakers bureau: SS has undertaken speaking engagements for Actelion, eyeforpharma, Four Health, Janssen and Roche, though these are not related to the contents of this abstract., Zoltan Szekanecz Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant for: Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Annamaria Iagnocco: None declared, Sofia Ramiro Grant/research support from: MSD, Consultant for: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Francisca Sivera: None declared, maxime dougados Grant/research support from: Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Consultant for: Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Actelion, Astellas, BMS, Eisay, Gebro Pharma, Grunenthal, Leo Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB Pharma, Paid instructor for: Novartis, Gerd Rudiger Burmester Consultant for: Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Speakers bureau: Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Nordic Pharma, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB, Consultant for: L Gossec has received honoraria from Celgene as investigator for this study, Francis Berenbaum: None declared

Background Young clinicians and researchers frequently work alongside other medical specialists in order to share expertise, knowledge and skills. Multidisciplinary work is worthwhile but may be sometimes challenging. Objectives To describe current clinical and research collaboration among young specialists and to identify some perspectives to develop such collaborations. Methods An online survey was disseminated by email and social media (facebook and twitter) to members of the Emerging European League Against Rheumatism Network (EMEUNET), the Young Nephrologists’ Platform (YNP), the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society Emerging Rheumatologists and Researchers (PReS EMERGE), and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Junior Members (EAACI JM). Results Of 354 respondents from 40 countries, 60% were female, 23% were aged below 30 years and 67% 31–40 years. Young rheumatologists were the most represented (36%), followed by young nephrologists (24%), young paediatricians (18%), young allergologists (11%) then young internists (3%) and several other specialties (as clinical immunology, dermatology, pulmonology, orthopaedics). 60% were certified specialists, 34% in training and 6% were researchers without clinical work. Overall, the top 3 specialties for clinical collaboration in daily practice were radiology, cardiology and dermatology. Collaborations were reported frequently by phone and email, also by various combined clinics while common local multidisciplinary meetings were uncommon. Of note, 71% of respondents found collaboration with young colleagues easier than with senior specialists. Research collaboration usually started by knowing other specialists (73%) and/or by attending common meetings (39%). 96% would like to develop clinical research collaborations and 69% basic research collaborations. The majority of young specialists would be interested in online (84%) and/or 1–2 days (86%) common courses including cases discussion (80%) and training workshops (84%), as well as webinars recorded with several specialists on a specific disease (96%). Respondents were a bit less enthusiastic with developing collaboration through social media (facebook 61%, twitter 58%) but interested in common apps (71%). Conclusions This collaborative initiative highlighted wishes from young specialists for developing 1) regular local multidisciplinary meetings to discuss complex patients 2) clinical research collaboration with combined grants and 3) multidisciplinary online projects such as common courses, webinars and apps. Acknowledgements We thank all members of young organisations for their active participation. Disclosure of Interest None declared

Background Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the commonest form of systemic vasculitis caused by inflammation of the blood vessels around the head and neck, with the highest incidence in women aged 70–79 years (7.4 per 10 000 person-years). Patients present with headache, jaw claudication and polymyalgia rheumatica with visual loss in 20%. Treatment is with high dose glucocorticoids. Objectives Identify and define the range of patient experiences in relation to GCA, and effects on health related quality of life in patients from the United Kingdom and Australia. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients from the UK and Australia explored health-related quality of life and patient perspectives on the experience of GCA. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed. Patients were purposively sampled to include both genders, a range of disease durations and organ involvement (visual loss and large vessel involvement). Data were analysed with inductive thematic analysis and managed using NVivo 10. The sample size was determined by the point at which no new substantive themes emerged. Results Thirty-one interviews were conducted. Demographics and disease features shown in table 1. Individual sub-codes were identified then grouped into overarching themes: “Anxieties around getting a diagnosis of GCA”, “Description of symptoms related to GCA and its treatment”, “Lack of bodily strength, stability and stamina; difficulties with completing daily tasks”, “Difficulties with participating in social activities, work and caring roles”, “Not feeling normal and impact on general perception of health”, “Anxiety and fear of the future”. Contextual factors impacted on how patients experienced GCA including “Response to treatment and adverse effects”, “Receiving support from family, friends and health care workers”, “Adopting successful self-management techniques, e.g. keeping fit and active” and “Presence of pre-existing co-morbidities and development of secondary conditions e.g. cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or diabetes”. Conclusions Patients with GCA have described a range of themes of interest in relation to their disease. These data could be used as the basis of developing a patient reported measure of outcome in GCA. Disclosure of Interest None declared