Digital health interventions (DHIs) are prevalent and have been shown to help some people with long-term conditions (LTCs) to manage their condition. There are myriad options for digital delivery yet limited understanding of what modes of delivery are acceptable to people with LTCs. It is important to understand the acceptability of delivery methods of DHIs to inform future DHI development and promote engagement. This scoping review aims to explore the acceptability of the delivery of DHIs for people with LTCs.

This review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping reviews extension checklist. Databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, AHMED and PsycINFO will be searched for primary studies that provide data on preferences for delivery methods of DHIs by people with LTCs. Narrative analysis is anticipated, and a summary of the findings will be presented in a tabulated format.

Ethical approval will not be required for this scoping review. The findings will be disseminated via appropriate peer-reviewed journals and conferences and PhD theses.

This study aimed to explore what intervention specificities or attributes newly diagnosed individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) find important and to explore possible reasons behind their evaluations.

A stepwise approach began with a systematic literature review to identify significant attributes. Patients with MS then assessed these attributes through an online survey, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended questions. Finally, the results were evaluated by the clinical team to select the most relevant factors for personalised care.

From June 2023 to December 2023, all consecutive patients referred to the MS Center of Careggi University Hospital were screened for inclusion. Following recruitment, cognitive and physical assessments were administered at the Don Gnocchi Centre. All participants were interviewed by an experienced neuropsychologist.

Participants were enrolled in the RELIABLE clinical trial, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended question. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritised levels of treatment attributes: treatment effects, methods of intervention, type of monitoring, monitoring, mode and mental support. The open-ended questions addressed the reasons behind the level rankings.

Participants’ rankings revealed the most important levels of each attribute. The highest-ranked method of intervention was disease-modifying treatment, which received 164 points. For mental support, individual psychotherapy was deemed most important with 149 points. Preservation of cognitive function, a key treatment effect, received 144 points. Clinical check-ups were the top type of monitoring with 129 points. Lastly, the hybrid mode of monitoring (half remote/half in-person) was ranked with 77 points. Open-ended responses provided insights into the reasons behind these preferences, emphasising the importance of maintaining mobility, cognitive function and emotional well-being. The clinical team evaluated these findings, confirming that the selected attributes were both clinically relevant and aligned with patient priorities. This evaluation process ensured that the treatment specificities chosen for individualised care were comprehensive and reflective of patient needs.

By identifying and prioritising key treatment attributes, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of MS management and emphasises the importance of aligning treatment options with patient preferences. Addressing these factors through further quantitative preference assessments is essential for preventative MS care, improving patient outcomes and promoting a more patient-centred approach to treatment.