Acceptance of Telerheumatology by Rheumatologists and General Practitioners in Germany: Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey Study.
Attitude of Health Personnel
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
General Practitioners
/ psychology
Germany
/ epidemiology
Humans
Middle Aged
Pandemics
Rheumatologists
/ psychology
Rheumatology
/ methods
SARS-CoV-2
/ isolation & purification
Surveys and Questionnaires
Telemedicine
/ methods
COVID-19
eHealth
health services research
mHealth
primary care
rheumatology
telemedicine
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 03 2021
29 03 2021
Historique:
received:
21
08
2020
accepted:
04
03
2021
pubmed:
11
3
2021
medline:
23
4
2021
entrez:
10
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners. The goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners. A nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period. A total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%). Before COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners.
OBJECTIVE
The goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners.
METHODS
A nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period.
RESULTS
A total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Before COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33690147
pii: v23i3e23742
doi: 10.2196/23742
pmc: PMC8042540
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e23742Informations de copyright
©Felix Muehlensiepen, Johannes Knitza, Wenke Marquardt, Jennifer Engler, Axel Hueber, Martin Welcker. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 29.03.2021.
Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Mar;74(3):e12
pubmed: 24534758
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Oct;69(10):1546-1557
pubmed: 27863164
Clin Rheumatol. 2015 May;34(5):819-29
pubmed: 25501633
Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(6):844-848
pubmed: 30987966
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Mar;70(3):353-360
pubmed: 28511288
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016 Dec;46(3):380-385
pubmed: 27395561
Z Rheumatol. 2020 Aug;79(6):554-561
pubmed: 32472178
Z Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;78(9):839-846
pubmed: 30542914
Telemed J E Health. 2020 Mar;26(3):335-340
pubmed: 31084537
Musculoskeletal Care. 2018 Mar;16(1):90-95
pubmed: 28967235
Z Rheumatol. 2019 Oct;78(8):692-697
pubmed: 31468164
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jul 20;8(7):e18117
pubmed: 32390592
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Aug;47(1):121-128
pubmed: 28420491
J Rheumatol. 2010 Mar;37(3):544-9
pubmed: 20080920
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Jan;71(1):80-87
pubmed: 29669191
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Apr 02;17:146
pubmed: 27038788
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Sep;70(9):1366-1372
pubmed: 29195011
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Oct;68(10):1387-9
pubmed: 26866514
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003 Sep-Oct;21(5 Suppl 31):S154-7
pubmed: 14969068
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Mar;72(3):319-325
pubmed: 30740935
Lancet. 2016 Jun 4;387(10035):2323-2330
pubmed: 27059888
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2019 Aug 05;7(8):e14991
pubmed: 31381501
Br J Gen Pract. 2001 Sep;51(470):746-8
pubmed: 11593837
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-1681
pubmed: 32160451
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019 Oct 28;5(4):e14689
pubmed: 31661082
Mil Med. 2020 Dec 30;185(11-12):e2082-e2087
pubmed: 32789463
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 May 15;8(5):e17507
pubmed: 32348258
Health Aff (Millwood). 2018 Dec;37(12):1923-1930
pubmed: 30633670