Optimal care for systemic sclerosis patients: recommendations from a patient-centered and multidisciplinary mixed-method study and working conference

Lessons learnt from the recent recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of systemic sclerosis

In inflammatory rheumatic diseases, including, systemic sclerosis (SSc) there is growing evidence that treatment strategies should not only target disease control in terms of clinical features and laboratory tests but consider distinct interventions to mitigate all domains of perceived disease impact. The results of a multicentric work based on data from the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Registry (Reuma.pt)/Scleroderma indicated that the optimization of outcomes for patients with SSc would in all probability require assessment of the needs of individual patients and consider adjunctive interventions in clinical practice to mitigate all significantly affected domains of disease impact. Recently, in June 2023, a task force under the auspices of EULAR, comprising rheumatologists, health professionals and patient advocates published four overarching principles and twelve recommendations for the non-pharmacological management of people living with SSc and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Step forward in early recognition of systemic sclerosis: data from the Leiden CCISS cohort

BACKGROUND

Since 2009, Dutch patients with a confirmed diagnosis/suspicion of systemic sclerosis (SSc) can be referred to the Leiden Combined Care in Systemic Sclerosis (CCISS) cohort. This study evaluated whether early recognition of SSc has improved over time and whether disease characteristics and survival has changed over time.

METHODS

643 SSc patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2013 SSc criteria were included and categorised into three groups based on cohort-entry year: (1) 2010-2013 (n=229 (36%)), (2) 2014-2017 (n=207 (32%)) and (3) 2018-2021 (n=207 (32%)). Variables including disease duration, interstitial lung disease (ILD), digital ulcers (DU), diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), antitopoisomerase (ATA) and anticentromere (ACA) antibodies, and survival from disease onset were compared between cohort-entry groups, including analyses stratified for sex and autoantibodies.

RESULTS

Over time, duration between onset of disease symptoms and cohort entry decreased in males and females, but was always longer in females than in males.The proportion of patients presenting with DU decreased, especially in ACA+SSc patients. Almost no ACA+ patients presented with ILD, while in ATA+ patients this proportion was 25% in 2010-2013 and decreased to 19% in 2018-2021. A reduction in patients presenting with clinically meaningful ILD and dcSSc was observed.Overall 8-year survival for males was 59% (95% CI 40% to 73%) and for females 89% (95% CI 82% to 93%). Eight-year survival showed a trend for improvement over time, and was always worse in males.

CONCLUSION

We observed a decrease in disease duration in Leiden CCISS cohort at cohort entry, possibly indicating more timely diagnosis of SSc. This could provide opportunities for early interventions. While symptom duration at presentation is longer in females, mortality is consistently higher in males, underlining the urge for sex-specific treatment and follow-up.

Consensus-based recommendations on communication and education regarding primary care physical therapy for patients with systemic sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop recommendations for communication and postgraduate education regarding primary care physical therapy for systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients.

METHODS

A virtual Nominal Group Technique was used with tasks forces for communication (n = 18) and education (n = 21). Both included rheumatologists, physical therapists (PTs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care, rheumatology nurses, advanced nurse practictioners and patient representatives. Three online meetings were organised for each task force to discuss (1) current bottlenecks; (2) potential solutions; and (3) the resulting draft recommendations. After the final adjustments, participants rated their level of agreement with each recommendation on a scale from 0 (not at all agree) to 100 (totally agree), using an online questionnaire.

RESULTS

19 and 34 recommendations were formulated for communication and education, respectively. For communication the main recommendations concerned the provision of an overview of primary care physical therapists with expertise in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases to patients and rheumatologists, the inclusion of the indication by the rheumatologist in the referral to the physical therapist and low-threshold communication with the rheumatologist in case of questions or concerns of the physical therapist. For postgraduate education three types of "on demand" educational offerings were recommended with varying levels of content and duration, to match the competencies and preferences of individual primary care physical therapists.

CONCLUSION

Using a systematic qualitative approach, two multi-stakeholder task forces developed practical recommendations for primary care physical therapists' communication with hospital-based care providers and postgraduate education regarding the treatment of SSc patients.

Patient Assessment Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and its associations with quality of life among Swiss patients with systemic sclerosis: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a longstanding and widely adopted model guiding chronic illness management. Little is known about how CCM elements are implemented in rare disease care or how patients' care experiences relate to health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We engaged patients living with systemic sclerosis (SSc) to assess current care according to the CCM from the patient perspective and their HRQoL.

METHODS

We employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, we conducted a cross-sectional quantitative survey (n = 101) using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and Systemic Sclerosis Quality of Life (SScQoL) questionnaires. Next, we used data from individual patient interviews (n = 4) and one patient focus group (n = 4) to further explore care experiences of people living with SSc with a focus on the PACIC dimensions.

RESULTS

The mean overall PACIC score was 3.0/5.0 (95% CI 2.8-3.2, n = 100), indicating care was 'never' to 'generally not' aligned with the CCM. Lowest PACIC subscale scores related to 'goal setting/tailoring' (mean = 2.5, 95% CI 2.2-2.7) and 'problem solving/contextual counselling' (mean = 2.9, 95% CI 2.7-3.2). No significant correlations were identified between the mean PACIC and SScQoL scores. Interviews revealed patients frequently encounter major shortcomings in care including 'experiencing organized care with limited participation', 'not knowing which strategies are effective or harmful' and 'feeling left alone with disease and psychosocial consequences'. Patients often responded to challenges by 'dealing with the illness in tailored measure', 'taking over complex coordination of care' and 'relying on an accessible and trustworthy team'.

CONCLUSIONS

The low PACIC mean overall score is comparable to findings in patients with common chronic diseases. Key elements of the CCM have yet to be systematically implemented in Swiss SSc management. Identified gaps in care related to lack of shared decision-making, goal-setting and individual counselling-aspects that are essential for supporting patient self-management skills. Furthermore, there appears to be a lack of complex care coordination tailored to individual patient needs.

Physical Therapy in Systemic Sclerosis: The Patient Perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use, satisfaction, needs, and preferences regarding physical therapy (PT) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc).

METHODS

A total of 405 SSc patients, treated in the Leiden University Medical Center multidisciplinary care program and fulfilling American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) 2013 SSc criteria, received a questionnaire containing 37 questions on use and satisfaction regarding PT over a 2-year period, and their needs and preferences for future PT.

RESULTS

A total of 204 SSc patients (median age 63 years, 81% female) completed the questionnaire. One hundred twenty-eight patients (63%) had used or were using PT in a primary care setting. For 39% of patients not using PT, lack of referral or lack of knowledge was the reason for not using it. The most frequently reported active treatments were muscle-strengthening (n = 92 [72%]), range of motion (n = 77 [60%]), and aerobic exercises (n = 72 [56%]). Specific SSc hand- and mouth-opening exercises were reported by 20 (15%) and 7 (6%) patients, respectively. Manual treatment (massage or passive mobilization) was reported by 83 patients (65%). The mean ± SD satisfaction score (range 0-10) was 8.2 ± 1.6. Regarding patients' needs, 96 patients (47%) of the total group wanted to receive more information concerning PT, and 128 (63%) wanted to continue, start, or restart PT in the near future, with 56 of the 128 patients (44%) favoring individual treatment on a continuous basis.

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant variation in the use and content of PT for SSc patients in a primary care setting. Our results suggest potential underuse of PT care, in particular for hand and oral dysfunction, and underpin the need for initiatives to improve the quality and accessibility of PT care for SSc patients.

Multidisciplinary teams in the clinical care of fibrotic interstitial lung disease: current perspectives

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, involving the integrated collaboration of healthcare professionals, are increasingly used in clinical practice to inform the diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Over time, the assessment of patients with ILD has transitioned from discussions among clinicians, radiologists and pathologists to the inclusion of a broader range of clinical data and specialist expertise. Studies have shown that a multidisciplinary approach can have many benefits for the clinical care of patients with ILD by improving the diagnostic confidence for different ILDs and guiding treatment decisions. The utility of MDT discussions for diagnosis, monitoring disease progression and management decisions, will need to be considered based on how it is best positioned in the diagnostic and therapeutic process, as well as the practicality and challenges of its use. There are also uncertainties and heterogeneity concerning the optimal practices of MDT meetings in ILD care. In this review, we describe recent developments refining the approach to MDTs in clinical practice, including who should be involved in the MDTs, when it is most needed, their use in patient management, challenges in their implementation, and ongoing controversies in the field that need further research.

Identifying unmet needs in SSc-ILD by semi-qualitative in-depth interviews

OBJECTIVES

Interstitial lung disease is frequent in SSc (SSc-ILD) and associates with significantly reduced quality of life. Here we aimed to analyse patient pathways, and experiences of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) in order to identify unmet needs in the management of SSc-ILD patients.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted in eight European countries looked at HCP (n = 95) and patient perspectives (n = 47) using two sets of 70 research questions. Pre-diagnostic, diagnostic and post-diagnostic phases of the patient pathway were systematically explored.

RESULTS

(i) In the pre-diagnostic phase several gaps were identified by HCPs and patients in all participating countries: limited disease knowledge among primary care physicians and specialists, lack of accurate patient information, and delayed and/or inappropriate referral. (ii) The diagnostic phase is in most countries coordinated by rheumatologists, who are also the main point of care. Depending on the local health system, organization of multidisciplinary collaboration varies. HCPs issued lack of national guidelines, while patients stated difficulties obtaining disease-related information. (iii) In the post-diagnostic phase, HCPs and patients indicated lack of curative treatment, specialized nurses, and paramedical  and psychological support. Patients and caregivers additionally expressed the need for clear information on SSc-ILD.

CONCLUSION

Lack of disease specific knowledge, gaps in national healthcare systems and insufficient information and support for patients and caregivers were identified as unmet needs to ensure timely diagnosis, provide better patient management and to improve quality of life in SSc-ILD patients.

Patient and healthcare professional eHealth literacy and needs for systemic sclerosis support: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

We engaged patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and healthcare professionals to assess electronic health (eHealth) literacy and needs relating to web-based support using internet-based information and communication technologies (ICT).

METHODS

We employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in patients (n=101) and professionals (n=47). Next, we conducted three focus groups with patients, family members and professionals (n=17).

RESULTS

Of patients, 89.1% used ICT at least weekly for private communication. Patients reported relatively high comprehension of eHealth information ([Formula: see text] =6.7, 95% CI: 6.2 to 7.3, range 1-10), yet were less confident evaluating information reliability ([Formula: see text] =5.8, 95% CI: 5.1 to 6.4) and finding eHealth apps ([Formula: see text] =4.8, 95% CI: 4.2 to 5.4). Patients and professionals reported little experience with web-based self-management support. Focus groups revealed 'considering non-ICT-accessible groups' and 'fitting patients' and professionals' technology' as crucial for acceptability. In relation to understanding/appraising eHealth, participants highlighted that general SSc information is not tailored to individual's disease course. Recommendations included 'providing timely, understandable and safe information' and 'empowering end-users in ICT and health decision-making skills'. Professionals expressed concerns about lacking resources. Patients were concerned about data security and person-centredness. Key eHealth drivers included 'addressing end-user perceptions' and 'putting people at the centre of technology'.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and professionals need education/training to support uptake of eHealth resources. Key elements include guiding patients to timely/reliable information and using eHealth to optimise patient-provider communication. Design that is responsive to end-users' needs and considers individuals with limited eHealth literacy and/or ICT access appears to be critical for acceptability.

Physical therapy in patients with systemic sclerosis: physical therapists' perspectives on current delivery and educational needs

Objective: To assess the perspectives of physical therapists treating patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) on their current practice and educational needs.Method: In July 2019, 405 SSc patients attending a multidisciplinary SSc programme received a survey on physical therapy. Patients who indicated having received physical therapy in the past 2 years were asked to invite their treating physical therapist to complete a questionnaire including sociodemographic characteristics, referral process, content of treatment, perceived knowledge and skills, and educational needs (mostly yes/no answers).Results: Forty-eight of 80 possibly eligible physical therapists treating SSc patients returned the questionnaire [median age 44 years (interquartile range 35-58); 52% female; median number of SSc patients currently treated: 1 (range 1-4)]. Eighty-one per cent (n = 39) of physical therapists had received a referral, with 69% (n = 27/39) judging its content as insufficient. The most often provided types of exercises were range of motion (96%), muscle-strengthening (85%), and aerobic (71%) exercises, followed by hand (42%) and mouth (10%) exercises. Concerning manual treatment, 65% performed either massage or passive mobilization. Regarding competences, 65% indicated feeling capable of treating SSc patients. Nevertheless, 85% expressed the need for an information website on physical therapy in SSc, and 77% for postgraduate education on SSc.Conclusion: Primary care physical therapists treating patients with SSc used a wide range of treatment modalities. Although most stated that they treated very few patients, the majority felt capable of treating SSc patients. Nevertheless, the large majority expressed a need for additional information and educational activities concerning SSc.

Effects of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions on health outcomes in systemic sclerosis: protocol for a living systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma) is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease with a high level of burden, a significant impact on the ability to carry out daily activities, and a considerable negative impact on health-related quality of life. Non-pharmacological interventions could be provided to potentially improve mental and physical health outcomes. However, the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on health and well-being among individuals with SSc has not been well established. The proposed living systematic review aims to identify and evaluate randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions on mental and physical health outcomes and on the delivery of such services in SSc.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Eligible studies will be RCTs that examine non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions aimed at improving health outcomes among individuals with SSc or the delivery of services intended to improve healthcare or support of people with SSc (eg, support groups). All RCTs included in a previous systematic review that sought studies published between 1990 and March 2014 will be evaluated for inclusion. Additional trials will be sought from January 2014 onwards using a similar, augmented search strategy developed by a health sciences librarian. We will search the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases and will not restrict by language. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of identified RCTs and will extract data using a prespecified standardised form in DistillerSR. Meta-analyses will be considered if ≥2 eligible RCTs report similar non-pharmacological interventions and comparable health outcomes. We will conduct a qualitative synthesis for interventions that cannot be synthesised via meta-analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will post initial and ongoing results via a website, publish results periodically via peer-reviewed journal publication, and present results at patient-oriented events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020219914.

Requirements for systemic sclerosis expert centres in the Netherlands: A Delphi consensus study

Introduction:

Systemic sclerosis is a rare and complex disease. Optimal management of patients requires knowledge and experience and, importantly, intensive collaboration between hospitals and multidisciplinary teams. Definition and recognition of expert centres in systemic sclerosis is currently lacking, which complicates collaboration between centres and leaves patients poorly informed. The aim of this study was to develop a set of requirements for two types of systemic sclerosis centres in order to establish a nationwide structure for an optimal and transparent organization of care.

Methods:

A three-round Delphi study was conducted among a panel of rheumatologists working at university or regional hospitals across the Netherlands. Prior to the final consensus round, a session with a patient panel (N = 22) was held. The results of this meeting were described in the last round for rheumatologists. Criteria were divided into five categories: (1) medical care, (2) case load, (3) collaboration, (4) research, (5) training of staff, and (6) other. In the first round, criteria derived from literature were proposed and participants could add criteria that were missing. For every item, participants could indicate if they thought the item should be included for two types of systemic sclerosis centres: (1) systemic sclerosis expert centre or (2) systemic sclerosis treatment centres. Consensus was reached when more than 85% of the panel agreed.

Results:

In total, 47 rheumatologists participated in Delphi round 1, 35 in round 2 and 43 in round 3. Additional suggestions were added by the patient panel (n = 22). Consensus was reached for the requirements of systemic sclerosis expert centres (45 items) and systemic sclerosis treatment centres (29 items) including minimal caseloads of annual suspected systemic sclerosis cases and total patients in care.

Conclusion:

Requirements of centres for systemic sclerosis care in the Netherlands were established in this study. Feasibility of certification should be evaluated next. Our proposed list can serve as a model for other countries.

Opening the black box of non-pharmacological care in systemic sclerosis: a cross-sectional online survey of Dutch health professionals

The objective is to describe the spectrum of the health professional (HP) treatment approach for systemic sclerosis (SSc) from the perspective of Dutch HPs, including alignment of treatment goals set by HPs with self-reported referral reasons, coverage of patient-reported unmet care needs, and quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Dutch HPs were invited through their patients with SSc to complete an anonymous online survey. The survey covered referral reasons, treatment goals, and interventions of the last patient treated, as well as the perceived quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists. Referral reasons and treatment targets were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health following the refined ICF Linking Rules. Seventy-nine HPs from 8 professions (including 58 physiotherapists, 73%) completed the survey. One hundred and thirty-three different referral reasons were reported, yielding 58 different ICF codes, with 41 (70.7%) being linked to the ICF domain “body structures and functions.” The reported interventions focused on body functions/structures (27.9%), training of daily activities (25.6%), education and advice (26.3%), and psychosocial interventions (20.2%). The quality of communication between HPs and rheumatologists was perceived as low. Our findings revealed numerous treatment options offered by Dutch HPs addressing the unmet care needs of patients with SSc. There is an overlap in the content of the various HP disciplines, and HP treatment goals are not sufficiently aligned with referrals of rheumatologists. HP treatment offer seemed inefficiently organized, possibly precluding rheumatologists from making targeted referrals. Communication between rheumatologists and HPs should be improved.

A practical guide to interpreting and applying systematic reviews of qualitative studies in rheumatology

While patient-centered care is widely advocated in the management of rheumatic diseases, it can be challenging to implement, particularly for patients with complex systemic conditions. Patient-centered care involves identifying and integrating the patient's experiences, attitudes, and preferences in decision-making. Qualitative research is used to describe patient perspectives and priorities that may not always be expressed in clinical settings. Systematic reviews of qualitative studies can provide new and more comprehensive evidence of patients' beliefs and priorities across different populations and healthcare settings and are increasingly being reported across medical specialties, including rheumatology. In rheumatology, they have been used to examine topics including medication-taking and adherence, coping with systemic sclerosis and conservative management and exercise in osteoarthritis. By referencing recent examples of systematic qualitative reviews in the rheumatology literature, this article will outline the methodology and methods used, and provide an approach to guide the appraisal of reviews. We aim to give the reader a practical understanding of systematic reviews of qualitative literature and elucidate how knowledge gained from such reviews can be applied to improve the care of patients with rheumatic conditions.

Diagnosis and treatment of patients with antiphospholipid syndrome: a mixed-method evaluation of care in The Netherlands

Objectives

The aims were to gain insight into the care provided to patients with APS in The Netherlands and to identify areas for improvement from the perspective of both patients and medical specialists.

Methods

APS care was evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods. Perspectives on APS care were explored using semi-structured interviews with medical specialists, patient focus groups and a cross-sectional, online patient survey. In order to assess current practice, medical records were reviewed retrospectively to collect data on clinical and laboratory manifestations and pharmacological treatment in six Dutch hospitals.

Results

Fourteen medical specialists were interviewed, 14 patients participated in the focus groups and 79 patients completed the survey. Medical records of 237 patients were reviewed. Medical record review showed that only one-third of patients were diagnosed with APS within 3 months after entering specialist care. The diagnostic approach and management varied between centres and specialists. Almost 10% of all patients and 7% of triple-positive patients with thrombotic APS were not receiving any anticoagulant treatment at the time of medical record review. Correspondingly, poor recognition and fragmentation of care were reported as the main problems by medical specialists. Additionally, patients reported the lack of accessible, reliable patient education, psychosocial support and trust in physicians as important points for improvement.

Conclusion

Delayed diagnosis, variability in management strategies and fragmentation of care were important limitations of APS care identified in this study. A remarkable 10% of patients did not receive any anticoagulant treatment.

Room for improvement in non-pharmacological systemic sclerosis care? - a cross-sectional online survey of 650 patients

BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE

To gain insight in the use of current systemic sclerosis (SSc) care provided by health professionals from the patient perspective. We focused on referral reasons, treatment goals, the alignment with unmet care needs, and outcome satisfaction.

METHODS

Dutch SSc patients from 13 participating rheumatology departments were invited to complete an online survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe current use of non-pharmacological care and outcome satisfaction. Reasons for referral and treatment goals were encoded in International Classification of Function and Disability (ICF) terms.

RESULTS

We included 650 patients (mean (standard deviation [SD]) age, 59.4 (11.4) years. 50% had contact with a health professional in the past year; 76.3% since disease onset. Physiotherapists were the most frequently visited in the past year (40.0%), followed by dental hygienists (11.4%) and podiatrists (9.2%). The three most common referral reasons were pain, joint mobility and cardiovascular functions. Fatigue, Raynaud's phenomenon, physical limitations, reduced hand function and joint problems were mentioned by more than 25% of all respondents as unmet needs. The proportion of patients treated in the past year by a health professional who were satisfied with knowledge and expertise of their health professionals was 74.4%; 73% reported improved daily activities and better coping with complaints. However, 48.9% perceived that the collaboration between rheumatologist and health professional was never or only sometimes sufficient.

CONCLUSION

Despite the high outcome satisfaction and good accessibility of health professionals, there are obstacles in the access to non-pharmacological care and communication barriers between health professionals and rheumatologists.

How do patients with systemic sclerosis experience currently provided healthcare and how should we measure its quality?

Objectives

To gain insight into SSc patients’ perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators.

Methods

An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals.

Results

Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0–4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators.

Conclusion

The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc.

Developing a rare disease chronic care model: Management of systemic sclerosis (MANOSS) study protocol

AIM

The aim of the management of systemic sclerosis (MANOSS) study described in this protocol is to develop a chronic care model, based on a contextual analysis and stakeholder involvement, for patients living with the rare disease systemic sclerosis (SSc) in Switzerland.

DESIGN

Applying an implementation science approach, this study starts with an explanatory sequential mixed method study for contextual analysis, followed by broad stakeholder involvement for model development and a Delphi study to reach consensus.

METHODS

First, a quantitative cross-sectional survey with patients and healthcare professionals (HPs) will be conducted to identify current practice patterns of chronic illness management and technology readiness. Second, qualitative interviews with patients, family members and HPs will be performed to gain a deeper understanding of care needs identified in the quantitative survey. Third, a model of care will be co-created with input from patients, HPs and other experts. The eHealth enhanced Chronic Care Model will serve as a guiding framework. The new model and corresponding outcome parameters will be refined using a Delphi-study approach to reach consensus on a testable model of care for persons living with SSc. The protocol has received research ethics committee approval in September 2018 by the Swiss Ethics Committee.

DISCUSSION

The MANOSS study's participatory approach is essential for contextual fit of the model for patients with SSc in this setting. Subsequent feasibility testing and implementation are planned to evaluate the model's value in relation to health disparities faced by this patient population.

IMPACT

Patients living with this rare disease lack access to coordinated, specialized care and self-management support from qualified HPs. Reengineering of current care, with consideration for technological opportunities, is warranted to meet patients' and families' needs.