BackgroundMobile health applications (apps) are 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.ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsA systematic literature review of app content and development strategies was conducted, followed by patient focus group and an online survey. Based on this information and along with task force expert opinion, PtC were formulated in a face-to-face meeting by a multidisciplinary task force panel of experts, including two patient research partners. The level of agreement among the panel in regard to each PtC was established by anonymous online voting.ResultsThree overarching principles and 10 PtC were formulated. Three PtC are related to patient safety, considered as a critical issue by the panel. Three are related to relevance of the content and functionalities. The requirement for transparency around app development and funding sources, along with involvement of relevant health professionals, were also raised. Ease of app access across ages and abilities was highlighted, in addition to considering the cost benefit of apps from the outset. The level of agreement was from 8.8 to 9.9 out of 10.ConclusionThese EULAR PtC provide guidance on important aspects that should be considered for the development, evaluation and implementation of existing and new apps.

Background On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization’s Emergency Committee declared the rapid, worldwide spread of COVID-19 a global health emergency. Since then, tireless efforts have been made to mitigate the spread of the disease and its impact, and these efforts have mostly relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions. By December 2020, the safety and efficacy of the first COVID-19 vaccines were demonstrated. The large social media platform Twitter has been used by medical researchers for the analysis of important public health topics, such as the public’s perception on antibiotic use and misuse and human papillomavirus vaccination. The analysis of Twitter-generated data can be further facilitated by using Twitter’s built-in, anonymous polling tool to gain insight into public health issues and obtain rapid feedback on an international scale. During the fast-paced course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Twitter polling system has provided a viable method for gaining rapid, large-scale, international public health insights on highly relevant and timely SARS-CoV-2–related topics. Objective The purpose of this study was to understand the public’s perception on the safety and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in real time by using Twitter polls. Methods We developed 2 Twitter polls to explore the public’s views on available COVID-19 vaccines. The surveys were pinned to the Digital Health and Patient Safety Platform Twitter timeline for 1 week in mid-February 2021, and Twitter users and influencers were asked to participate in and retweet the polls to reach the largest possible audience. Results The adequacy of COVID-19 vaccine safety (ie, the safety of currently available vaccines; poll 1) was agreed upon by 1579 out of 3439 (45.9%) Twitter users. In contrast, almost as many Twitter users (1434/3439, 41.7%) were unsure about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Only 5.2% (179/3439) of Twitter users rated the available COVID-19 vaccines as generally unsafe. Poll 2, which addressed the question of whether users would undergo vaccination, was answered affirmatively by 82.8% (2862/3457) of Twitter users, and only 8% (277/3457) categorically rejected vaccination at the time of polling. Conclusions In contrast to the perceived high level of uncertainty about the safety of the available COVID-19 vaccines, we observed an elevated willingness to undergo vaccination among our study sample. Since people's perceptions and views are strongly influenced by social media, the snapshots provided by these media platforms represent a static image of a moving target. Thus, the results of this study need to be followed up by long-term surveys to maintain their validity. This is especially relevant due to the circumstances of the fast-paced pandemic and the need to not miss sudden rises in the incidence of vaccine hesitancy, which may have detrimental effects on the pandemic’s course.

background/objectives To maintain and optimise the quality of care provided by health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs), adequate educational offerings are needed. This task force (TF) aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the generic core competences of HPRs, with specific reference to nurses, physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) to serve as a basis for their postgraduate education. Methods The EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of recommendations were followed. A TF including rheumatologists, nurses, PTs, OTs, patient-representatives, an educationalist, methodologists and researchers from 12 countries met twice. In the first TF meeting, 13 research questions were defined to support a systematic literature review (SLR). In the second meeting, the SLR evidence was discussed and recommendations formulated. Subsequently, level of evidence and strength of recommendation were assigned and level of agreement (LoA) determined (0-10 rating scale). Results Three overarching principles were identified and 10 recommendations were developed for the generic core competences of HPRs. The SLR included 79 full-text papers, 20 of which addressed the competences, knowledge, skills, attitudes and/or educational needs of HPRs from multiple professions. The average LoA for each recommendation ranged from 9.42 to 9.79. Consensus was reached both on a research and educational agenda. Conclusion Evidence and expert opinion informed a set of recommendations providing guidance on the generic core competences of HPRs. Implementation of these recommendations in the postgraduate education of HPRs at the international and national level is advised, considering variation in healthcare systems and professional roles. MeTHodsThe updated EULAR standardised operating procedures (SOPs) for the development of the recommendations were followed 5 after approval of the TF by the EULAR Executive Committee. The multidisciplinary TF comprised of a selection of nine experts in HPRs' education (three nurses, two PTs, three on July 4, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.

BackgroundNon-adherence to treatment could preclude reaching an optimal outcome. Thirty to 80% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) do not adhere to the agreed treatment.ObjectivesThe objective was to establish points to consider (PtCs) for the prevention, screening, assessment and management of non-adherence to (non-)pharmacological treatments in people with RMDs.MethodsAn EULAR task force (TF) was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for the development of PtCs were followed. The TF included healthcare providers (HCPs), comprising rheumatologists, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and patient-representatives from 12 European countries. A review of systematic reviews was conducted in advance to support the TF in formulating the PtCs. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting.ResultsFour overarching principles and nine PtCs were formulated. The PtCs reflect the phases of action on non-adherence. HCPs should assess and discuss adherence with patients on a regular basis and support patients to treatment adherence. As adherence is an agreed behaviour, the treatment has to be tailored to the patients’ needs. The level of agreement ranged from 9.5 to 9.9 out of 10.ConclusionsThese PtCs can help HCPs to support people with RMDs to be more adherent to the agreed treatment plan. The basic scheme being prevent non-adherence by bonding with the patient and building trust, overcoming structural barriers, assessing in a blame-free environment and tailoring the solution to the problem.

ObjectiveTo analyse how non-adherence to prescribed treatments might be prevented, screened, assessed and managed in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsAn overview of systematic reviews (SR) was performed in four bibliographic databases. Research questions focused on: (1) effective interventions or strategies, (2) associated factors, (3) impact of shared decision making and effective communication, (4) practical things to prevent non-adherence, (5) effect of non-adherence on outcome, (6) screening and assessment tools and (7) responsible healthcare providers. The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. The qualitative synthesis focused on results and on the level of evidence attained from the studies included in the reviews.ResultsAfter reviewing 9908 titles, the overview included 38 SR on medication, 29 on non-pharmacological interventions and 28 on assessment. Content and quality of the included SR was very heterogeneous. The number of factors that may influence adherence exceed 700. Among 53 intervention studies, 54.7% showed a small statistically significant effect on adherence, and all three multicomponent interventions, including different modes of patient education and delivered by a variety of healthcare providers, showed a positive result in adherence to medication. No single assessment provided a comprehensive measure of adherence to either medication or exercise.ConclusionsThe results underscore the complexity of non-adherence, its changing pattern and dependence on multi-level factors, the need to involve all stakeholders in all steps, the absence of a gold standard for screening and the requirement of multi-component interventions to manage it.

Key findings: Despite clear scope, most guidelines for SARS CoV-2 infections and for other care in the context of COVID-19 fell short of basic methodological standards. Only 4% were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). Patients were included in the development of one guideline. A process for regular updates was described in 14%. What this adds to what is known: Our study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. What is the implication/what should change now: An insufficient consideration of appropriate methodologies in the guideline development process could lead to misleading information, uncertainty among the professionals, and potentially harmful actions for patients. This paper provides an important benchmark for the future assessment of the quality of COVID-19 guidelines. Abstract Objective: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. Study Design and Setting: Rapid systematic review from February 1 st until April 27 th , 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. Results: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose , the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline. Conclusion: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.

Introduction:The Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) outbreak is affecting people worldwide. Given the frequent production of aerosols, dentists are a high-risk group for infection. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge, perception and attitude regarding COVID-19 among pediatric dentists in Austria. Methods: An online survey was distributed among the 128 pediatric dentists that are members of the Austrian Society of Pediatric Dentistry. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: 1) dentists' demographic characteristics, 2) general knowledge and attitude, 3) COVID-19 with a focus on pediatric dentistry. Results: Seventy-five dentists replied; 58 questionnaires could be included in the analysis (93.1% female). Pediatric dentists were found to have good general knowledge of COVID-19. However, only 10% had attended training or lectures and 36.2% rated their role in teaching patients about COVID-19 as being very significant. At the beginning of the outbreak, 78.6% only offered emergency services. Currently, only 10.3% of the dentists work without FFP2/3 mask when producing aerosols. Discussion: Austrian pediatric dentists were aware of the general aspects of COVID-19. Those, who had their practice open mostly followed national and international recommendations given and only offered emergency visits.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.