Objectives The study assessed the quality of life, wellbeing, and mental health of people living with Raynaud’s disease (RD). It employed an RD-specific measure for quality of life, used a large international sample, and included meteorological variables in the analyses. It also compared outcomes between primary and secondary RD and people without an RD diagnosis.

Methods A cross-sectional design was used. Participants (n = 720) completed a demographics questionnaire, The Raynaud-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), WHO-5 Wellbeing Index and DASS-21. Meteorological variables were recorded based on the participants’ location.

Results Participants with secondary RD reported lower quality of life and wellbeing, and higher anxiety, depression, and pain, than participants with primary RD or without a diagnosis. Participants without a diagnosis reported worse mental health than groups with a diagnosis. Participants in tropical climates reported the lowest quality of life, and those in temperate climates had the lowest wellbeing. Pain and symptom severity were the strongest predictors of quality of life (accounting for 30% of the variance), while meteorological variables accounted for up to 2% of the variance.

Conclusion RD negatively affects quality of life, wellbeing, and mental health, particularly for people living with secondary RD. Pain and symptom severity are key determinants. Meteorological factors contribute minimally. Tailored interventions focusing on symptoms management should be prioritised. Meteorological influences should be considered in healthcare planning alongside clinical and psychosocial factors.

Pain and symptom severity strongly predict quality of life in Raynaud’s disease

Individuals without a diagnosis report worse mental health than individuals with a diagnosis

Warmer climates do not necessarily protect against reduced qualify of life in Raynaud’s disease

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethics committee of the University of Bradford gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes