Search

It is unknown if patients with neuromuscular diseases prefer in-person or virtual telemedicine visits. We studied patient opinions and preference on virtual versus in-person visits, and the factors influencing such preferences.Telephone surveys, consisting of 11 questions, of patients from 10 neuromuscular centers were completed.Five hundred and twenty surveys were completed. Twenty-six percent of respondents preferred virtual visits, while 50% preferred in-person visits. Sixty-four percent reported physical interaction as "very important." For receiving a new diagnosis, 55% preferred in-person vs 35% reporting no preference. Forty percent were concerned about a lack of physical examination vs 20% who were concerned about evaluating vital signs. Eighty four percent reported virtual visits were sufficiently private. Sixty eight percent did not consider expenses a factor in their preference. Although 92% were comfortable with virtual communication technology, 55% preferred video communications, and 19% preferred phone calls. Visit preference was not significantly associated with gender, diagnosis, disease severity, or symptom management. Patients who were concerned about a lack of physical exam or assessment of vitals had significantly higher odds of selecting in-person visits than no preference.Although neither technology, privacy, nor finance burdened patients in our study, more patients preferred in-person visits than virtual visits and 40% were concerned about a lack of physical examination. Interactions that occur with in-person encounters had high importance for patients, reflecting differences in the perception of the patient-physician relationship between virtual and in-person visits.

Background Minorities have historically been underrepresented in clinical research trials despite having comparatively poor health indicators. Recognizing the dual inequalities of increased disease burden and decreased research participation, the National Institute of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993 mandated the inclusion and reporting of women and minorities in NIH-funded research. While progress has been made in the subsequent decades, this underrepresentation of minorities in research trials persists and has been documented in multiple disciplines. However, the extent of adequate representation and reporting of minority inclusion in clinical trials for migraine remains unknown. Objectives In this systematic review and study, we review the literature examining the representation of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials Methods First we searched PubMed for pertinent articles examining the inclusion of women and minorities in migraine clinical research trials. Second, we identified controlled-trials for migraine published since 2011 in major neurology, headache, and general medicine journals using the terms “migraine randomized controlled trial.” We then reviewed the results manually and excluded pilot studies and those with fewer than 50 participants. We next determined (a) how frequently representation of minorities and women were reported in these major trials; (b) what factors correlated with reporting; and (c) whether women and minority inclusion comprised their ratios in the general population. Results We identified 128 relevant clinical trials, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. All 36 trials (100%) reported gender frequency, and 25 of 36 (69.4%) reported ethnicity or race. Among all studies, women and Whites represented 84.2 and 82.9% of participants (mean), respectively. Studies conducted in the United States and funded by a private company were more likely to report race than studies conducted exclusively outside of the U.S. or with a public sponsor. No studies stratified efficacy or safety by ethnicity or gender. Men and non-Whites in the U.S. were statistically underrepresented. Conclusions Most recent headache studies comply with the NIH mandate to include women and minorities in research trials, particularly U.S.-based and industry-funded studies. Whites are overrepresented compared to both the general population and the population of migraineurs. Future studies should strive to increase minority participation and investigate race-based differences in migraine expression, treatment response, and medication toxicity.