Currently available pain self-management apps for patients are simplistic, lack the involvement of health care professionals in their development, and have not been rigorously tested for effectiveness on pain-related health outcomes. There is a need to develop and test theoretically and evidence-based apps to better support patients with accessible pain care self-management.

BackgroundObesity remains a major public health concern. Mobile apps for weight loss/management are found to be effective for improving health outcomes in adults and adolescents, and are pursued as a cost-effective and scalable intervention for combating overweight and obesity. In recent years, the commercial market for ‘weight loss apps’ has expanded at rapid pace, yet little is known regarding the evidence-based quality of these tools for weight control.ObjectiveTo characterize the inclusion of evidence-based strategies, health care expert involvement, and scientific evaluation of commercial mobile apps for weight loss/management.MethodsAn electronic search was conducted between July 2014 and July 2015 of the official app stores for four major mobile operating systems. Three raters independently identified apps with a stated goal of weight loss/management, as well as weight loss/management apps targeted to pediatric users. All discrepancies regarding selection were resolved through discussion with a fourth rater. Metadata from all included apps were abstracted into a standard assessment criteria form and the evidence-based strategies, health care expert involvement, and scientific evaluation of included apps was assessed. Evidence-based strategies included: self-monitoring, goal-setting, physical activity support, healthy eating support, weight and/or health assessment, personalized feedback, motivational strategies, and social support.ResultsA total of 393 apps were included in this review. Self-monitoring was most common (139/393, 35.3%), followed by physical activity support (108/393, 27.5%), weight assessment (100/393, 25.4%), healthy eating support (91/393, 23.2%), goal-setting (84/393, 21.4%), motivational strategies (28/393, 7.1%), social support (21/393, 5.3%), and personalized feedback (7/393, 1.8%). Of apps, 0.8% (3/393) underwent scientific evaluation and 0.3% (1/393) reported health care expert involvement. No apps were comprehensive in the assessment criteria, with the majority of apps meeting less than two criteria.ConclusionsCommercial mobile apps for weight loss/management lack important evidence-based features, do not involve health care experts in their development process, and have not undergone rigorous scientific testing. This calls into question the validity of apps’ claims regarding their effectiveness and safety, at a time when the availability and growth in adoption of these tools is rapidly increasing. Collaborative efforts between developers, researchers, clinicians, and patients are needed to develop and test high-quality, evidence-based mobile apps for weight loss/management before they are widely disseminated in commercial markets.

Background The impact and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease are unclear. We developed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Patient Experience Survey to assess the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with rheumatic disease worldwide.Methods Survey questions were developed by key stakeholder groups and disseminated worldwide through social media, websites, and patient support organisations. Questions included demographics, rheumatic disease diagnosis, COVID-19 diagnosis, adoption of protective behaviours to mitigate COVID-19 exposure, medication access and changes, health-care access and communication with rheumatologists, and changes in employment or schooling. Adults age 18 years and older with inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatic diseases were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis. We excluded participants reporting only non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as fibromyalgia or osteoarthritis. Findings 12 117 responses to the survey were received between April 3 and May 8, 2020, and of these, 10 407 respondents had included appropriate age data. We included complete responses from 9300 adults with rheumatic disease (mean age 46•1 years; 8375 [90•1%] women, 893 [9•6%] men, and 32 [0•3%] participants who identified as non-binary). 6273 (67•5%) of respondents identified as White, 1565 (16•8%) as Latin American, 198 (2•1%) as Black, 190 (2•0%) as Asian, and 42 (0•5%) as Native American or Aboriginal or First Nation. The most common rheumatic disease diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis (3636 [39•1%] of 9300), systemic lupus erythematosus (2882 [31•0%]), and Sjögren's syndrome (1290 [13•9%]). Most respondents (6921 [82•0%] of 8441) continued their antirheumatic medications as prescribed. Almost all (9266 [99•7%] of 9297) respondents adopted protective behaviours to limit SARS-CoV-2 exposure. A change in employment status occurred in 2524 (27•1%) of 9300) of respondents, with a 13•6% decrease in the number in full-time employment (from 4066 to 3514).Interpretation People with rheumatic disease maintained therapy and followed public health advice to mitigate the risks of COVID-19. Substantial employment status changes occurred, with potential implications for health-care access, medication affordability, mental health, and rheumatic disease activity.Funding American College of Rheumatology.

Background As the Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, healthcare providers struggle to manage both COVID-19 and non-COVID patients while still providing high-quality care. We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to describe the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with non-COVID illness and on healthcare systems compared to non-pandemic epochs. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/CENTRAL/CINAHL (inception to December 31, 2020). All study types with COVID-pandemic time period (after December 31, 2019) with comparative non-pandemic time periods (prior to December 31, 2019). Data regarding study characteristics/case-mix/interventions/comparators/ outcomes (primary: mortality; secondary: morbidity/hospitalizations/disruptions-to-care. Paired reviewers conducted screening and abstraction, with conflicts resolved by discussion. Effect sizes for specific therapies were pooled using random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with evidence rating using GRADE methodology. Results Of 11,581 citations, 167 studies met eligibility. Our meta-analysis showed an increased mortality of 16% during the COVID pandemic for non-COVID illness compared with 11% mortality during the pre-pandemic period (RR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.28–1.50; absolute risk difference: 5% [95% CI: 4–6%], p<0.00001, very low certainty evidence). Twenty-eight studies (17%) reported significant changes in morbidity (where 93% reported increases), while 30 studies (18%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Thirty-nine studies (23%) reported significant changes in hospitalizations (97% reporting decreases), while 111 studies (66%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Sixty-two studies (37%) reported significant disruptions in standards-to-care (73% reporting increases), while 62 studies (37%) reported no significant change (very low certainty). Conclusions There was a significant increase in mortality during the COVID pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times for non-COVID illnesses. When significant changes were reported, there was increased morbidity, decreased hospitalizations and increased disruptions in standards-of-care. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020201256 (Sept 2, 2020).

ObjectiveTo assess which mental health-related states of being are perceived as diseases by psychiatrists, non-psychiatric physicians, nurses, parliament members and laypeople.Design and settingA population-based, mailed survey in Finland.ParticipantsRespondents from a random sample of 3000 laypeople, 1500 physicians, 1500 nurses and all 200 members of the parliament (MPs) of Finland.Primary outcome measuresRespondents’ perspectives on 20 mental health-related states of being as diseases, measuring the extent of agreement with the claim: ‘[This state of being] is a disease’.ResultsOf the 6200 people approached, we received 3259 eligible responses (53%). Two conditions (schizophrenia and autism) were considered to be diseases by at least 75% and two states (grief and homosexuality) were considered not to be diseases by at least 75% in each group. A majority (at least 50% in each group) considered seven states as diseases (anorexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bulimia, depression, generalised anxiety disorder, panic disorder and personality disorder) and three not to be diseases (absence of sexual desire, premature ejaculation and transsexualism). In six states, there was a wide divergence of opinion (alcoholism, drug addiction, gambling addiction, insomnia, social anxiety disorder and work exhaustion). Psychiatrists were significantly more inclined to considering states of being as diseases relative to other groups, followed by non-psychiatric physicians, nurses, MPs and laypeople.ConclusionsRespondents agreed that some conditions, such as schizophrenia and autism, are diseases and other states, such as grief and homosexuality, are not; for others, there was considerable disagreement. Psychiatrists are more inclined to consider mental health-related states of being as diseases compared with other physicians, who, in turn, are more inclined than other constituencies. Understanding notions of disease may underlie important debates in public policy and practice in areas of mental health and behaviour, and have implications for resource allocation and stigma.