Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original article
Representativeness of a digitally engaged population and a patient organisation population with rheumatoid arthritis and their willingness to participate in research: a cross-sectional study
  1. Ruth Costello1,
  2. Clare Jacklin2,
  3. Matthew Jameson Evans3,
  4. John McBeth1 and
  5. William G Dixon1,4,5
  1. 1 Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  2. 2 National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, Berkshire, UK
  3. 3 HealthUnlocked (Everything Unlocked), London, UK
  4. 4 NIHR Manchester Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
  5. 5 Health eResearch Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to William GDixon; will.dixon{at}manchester.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To describe (1) the representativeness of (a) users of an online health community (HealthUnlocked.com (HU)) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and (b) paid members of an RA patient organisation, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS), compared with the general RA population; and (2) the willingness of HU users with RA to participate in types of research (surveys, use of an app or activity tracker, and trials).

Methods A pop-up survey was embedded on HU to determine the characteristics of users and their willingness to participate in research. An anonymous data set of NRAS member characteristics was provided by the NRAS (N=2044). To represent the general RA population, characteristics of people with RA were identified from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) (N=20 594). Cross-sectional comparisons were made across the three groups.

Results Compared with CPRD, HU respondents (n=615) were significantly younger (49% aged below 55 years compared with 23% of CPRD patients), significantly more deprived (21% in the most deprived Townsend quintile compared with 12% of CPRD patients) and had more recent disease, with 62% diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 compared with 37% of CPRD patients. NRAS members were more similar to the CPRD, but significantly under-represented those aged 75 years or over and over-represented those aged 55–75 years compared with the CPRD. High proportions of HU users were willing to participate in future research of all types.

Conclusions NRAS members were broadly representative of the general RA population. HU users were younger, more deprived and more recently diagnosed. HU users were willing to participate in most types of research.

  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • epidemiology
  • patient perspective.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors WGD conceived the idea. WGD, JM and RC were responsible for the design of the study, MJE and CJ contributed towards the design of the study. RC conducted the analysis and drafted the manuscript. All authors interpreted the results, critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content and approved the final manuscript.

  • Funding The work was supported by Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology (grant number: 20380).

  • Competing interests RC, JM and WGD have no competing interests. MJE is the Chief Medical Officer and cofounder of HealthUnlocked.com. CJ is employed by the NRAS.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.