Factors Associated with Patient Willingness to Conduct a Remote Video Musculoskeletal Consultation.
Musculoskeletal illness
Orthopedic surgery
Remote consultations
Virtual visits
Journal
The archives of bone and joint surgery
ISSN: 2345-4644
Titre abrégé: Arch Bone Jt Surg
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101636743
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
entrez:
14
12
2020
pubmed:
15
12
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Remote video consultations on musculoskeletal illness are relatively convenient and accessible, and use fewer resources. However, there are concerns about technological and privacy issues, the possibility of missing something important, and equal access to all patients. We measured patient characteristics associated with willingness to conduct a remote video musculoskeletal upper extremity consultation. One hundred and five patients seeking specialty musculoskeletal care completed questionnaires addressing (1) demographics, (2) access to a device, internet, and space to conduct a remote video consultation, (3) health literacy, (4) pain intensity, (5) magnitude of limitations of the upper extremity, (6) self-efficacy, and (7) rated willingness to conduct a remote video musculoskeletal consultation (11-point ordinal scale). A multivariable linear regression analysis sought factors independently associated with patient willingness to conduct remote video musculoskeletal upper extremity consultations. Patient education level (4 years of college) and accessibility to a space suitable for remote video consultations were independently associated with interest in remote video consultations. Sociodemographic factors, health literacy, accessibility to a device or internet, and amount of perceived pain and disability were not. We speculate that education level and suitable space might be surrogates for trust and privacy concerns. Future research might measure the ability of interventions to gain trust and ensure privacy to increase willingness to engage in remote video musculoskeletal consultations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Remote video consultations on musculoskeletal illness are relatively convenient and accessible, and use fewer resources. However, there are concerns about technological and privacy issues, the possibility of missing something important, and equal access to all patients. We measured patient characteristics associated with willingness to conduct a remote video musculoskeletal upper extremity consultation.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred and five patients seeking specialty musculoskeletal care completed questionnaires addressing (1) demographics, (2) access to a device, internet, and space to conduct a remote video consultation, (3) health literacy, (4) pain intensity, (5) magnitude of limitations of the upper extremity, (6) self-efficacy, and (7) rated willingness to conduct a remote video musculoskeletal consultation (11-point ordinal scale). A multivariable linear regression analysis sought factors independently associated with patient willingness to conduct remote video musculoskeletal upper extremity consultations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patient education level (4 years of college) and accessibility to a space suitable for remote video consultations were independently associated with interest in remote video consultations. Sociodemographic factors, health literacy, accessibility to a device or internet, and amount of perceived pain and disability were not.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We speculate that education level and suitable space might be surrogates for trust and privacy concerns. Future research might measure the ability of interventions to gain trust and ensure privacy to increase willingness to engage in remote video musculoskeletal consultations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33313344
pii: 10.22038/abjs.2020.42832.2164
pmc: PMC7718570
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
656-660Références
Qual Life Res. 2017 Jul;26(7):1915-1924
pubmed: 28239781
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Mar 28;171(6):568-74
pubmed: 21444847
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jul 16;16(7):e172
pubmed: 25048379
J Am Coll Surg. 2004 Oct;199(4):523-30
pubmed: 15454133
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 17;19(10):e345
pubmed: 29042345
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;24(e1):e18-e27
pubmed: 27497797
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jul;22(4):888-95
pubmed: 25914099
Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):514-22
pubmed: 16338915
Health Policy. 2016 Nov;120(11):1279-1292
pubmed: 27836231
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016 Sep 15;16(1):120
pubmed: 27630020
J Orthop Trauma. 2017 Oct;31(10):e321-e326
pubmed: 28938284
Am J Manag Care. 2016 Aug;22(8):539-40
pubmed: 27541700
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Mar;23(3):297-301
pubmed: 24524978
J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):918-922.e1
pubmed: 24342278
Injury. 2017 Mar;48(3):720-723
pubmed: 28168971
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Mar 04;18(3):e50
pubmed: 26944212
Arch Intern Med. 2005 Dec 12-26;165(22):2618-24
pubmed: 16344419
J Telemed Telecare. 1999;5 Suppl 1:S70-1
pubmed: 10534849