The Impact of Telemedicine on Rheumatology Care.
autoimmune diseases (AD)
quality of care/care delivery
quality of life
survey
telemedicine
telerheumatology
Journal
Frontiers in medicine
ISSN: 2296-858X
Titre abrégé: Front Med (Lausanne)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101648047
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
15
02
2022
accepted:
03
05
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
8
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The pandemic disrupted the care of patients with rheumatic diseases; difficulties in access to care and its psychological impact affected quality of life. Telemedicine as an alternative to traditional face-to-face office visits has the potential to mitigate this impact. To evaluate patient and provider experience with telemedicine and its effect on care. We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases and their rheumatology providers. The surveys were conducted in 2020 and repeated in 2021. We assessed data on quality of care and health-related quality of life. Hundred patients and 17 providers responded to the survey. Patients reported higher satisfaction with telemedicine in 2021 compared to 2020 (94 vs. 84%), felt more comfortable with (96 vs. 86%), expressed a stronger preference for (22 vs. 16%), and higher intention to use telemedicine in the future (83 vs. 77%); patients thought physicians were able to address their concerns. While providers' satisfaction with telemedicine increased (18-76%), 14/17 providers believed that telemedicine visits were worse than in-person visits. There were no differences in annualized office visits and admissions. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.74, lower than general population (0.87) but equivalent to a subset of patients with SLE (0.74). Our data showed a high level of satisfaction with telemedicine. The lower rheumatology provider satisfaction raises concern if telemedicine constitutes an acceptable alternative to in-person care. The stable number of office visits, admissions, and the similar quality of life to pre-pandemic level suggest effective management of rheumatic diseases using telemedicine/in-person hybrid care.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The pandemic disrupted the care of patients with rheumatic diseases; difficulties in access to care and its psychological impact affected quality of life. Telemedicine as an alternative to traditional face-to-face office visits has the potential to mitigate this impact.
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To evaluate patient and provider experience with telemedicine and its effect on care.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases and their rheumatology providers. The surveys were conducted in 2020 and repeated in 2021. We assessed data on quality of care and health-related quality of life.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Hundred patients and 17 providers responded to the survey. Patients reported higher satisfaction with telemedicine in 2021 compared to 2020 (94 vs. 84%), felt more comfortable with (96 vs. 86%), expressed a stronger preference for (22 vs. 16%), and higher intention to use telemedicine in the future (83 vs. 77%); patients thought physicians were able to address their concerns. While providers' satisfaction with telemedicine increased (18-76%), 14/17 providers believed that telemedicine visits were worse than in-person visits. There were no differences in annualized office visits and admissions. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.74, lower than general population (0.87) but equivalent to a subset of patients with SLE (0.74).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Our data showed a high level of satisfaction with telemedicine. The lower rheumatology provider satisfaction raises concern if telemedicine constitutes an acceptable alternative to in-person care. The stable number of office visits, admissions, and the similar quality of life to pre-pandemic level suggest effective management of rheumatic diseases using telemedicine/in-person hybrid care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35669922
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.876835
pmc: PMC9163385
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
876835Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Tang, Inzerillo, Weiner, Khalili, Barasch, Gartshteyn, Dall'Era, Aranow, Mackay and Askanase.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 9;16(7):e0253718
pubmed: 34242245
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Oct 1;3(10):e2021476
pubmed: 33006622
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 Feb;73(2):e1-e12
pubmed: 33277981
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Mar 1;:
pubmed: 33650316
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2136405
pubmed: 34851400
Int J Med Inform. 2022 Mar;159:104672
pubmed: 34979434
Front Med (Lausanne). 2021 Oct 13;8:746219
pubmed: 34722584
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Mar;70(3):353-360
pubmed: 28511288
Int J Clin Rheumtol. 2012 Feb;7(1):95-107
pubmed: 22448191
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2021 Aug;73(8):1153-1161
pubmed: 33973389
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1679-1681
pubmed: 32160451
J Rheumatol. 2002 Feb;29(2):288-91
pubmed: 11838846
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Oct;72(10):1404-1409
pubmed: 31421020
J Rheumatol. 2001 Aug;28(8):1910-3
pubmed: 11508599
Lupus. 2018 Jan;27(1):165-171
pubmed: 29050537
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):168-169
pubmed: 32334056
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Oct;69(10):1546-1557
pubmed: 27863164
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 6;17(1):e0262347
pubmed: 34990489
Med Care. 2005 Jul;43(7):736-49
pubmed: 15970790
Lupus Sci Med. 2020 Apr 3;7(1):e000396
pubmed: 32341791
Q J Med. 1988 Nov;69(259):927-37
pubmed: 3271336
Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):203-20
pubmed: 15725977
PLoS One. 2022 Jan 18;17(1):e0262756
pubmed: 35041692
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2020 Sep;16(9):525-535
pubmed: 32709998
Musculoskeletal Care. 2018 Mar;16(1):90-95
pubmed: 28967235
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):44-8
pubmed: 7818570