Search

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., (©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.)

Purpose: In recent years, an increase of occupational respiratory diseases, such as asthma caused by methacrylates, has been observed in dental personnel. In this study, the exposure of dental personnel to various volatile methacrylates was investigated., Materials and Methods: The air levels of methacrylates were measured during filling treatment while bonding agents were used in 4 dental practices in Munich, Germany. Short-term air sampling (15 min) was performed using solid phase microextraction (SPME). The SPME fibers were coated with carbowax/divinyl benzene to enrich the analytes. For analysis, the analytes were thermically desorbed from the fiber and subsequently analyzed directly by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry., Results: The methacrylates methyl methacrylate (MMA), 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEG-DMA) were identified in the air of dental practices. The exposure levels of the four methacrylates varied during the filling treatments. The maximum concentrations found were 0.4 mg/m3 for MMA, 45 microg/m3 for HEMA, 13 microg/m3 for EGDMA, and 45 microg/m3 for TEG-DMA. The detection of TEG-DMA correlated with the application of bonding agents during performance of dental fillings., Conclusion: Exposure levels of different methacrylates were observed at all investigated dental practices. The maximum levels of MMA measured in this study were at least 200 times lower than the toxicologically relevant maximum allowable concentrations defined in various countries. Nevertheless, the exposure levels of methacrylates should be kept as low as possible due to the allergenic potential of some methacrylates.