Search

Despite all its promises, telemedicine is still not widely implemented in the care of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study is to investigate opportunities, barriers, acceptance, and preferences concerning telemedicine among RMD patients and professional stakeholders. From November 2017 to December 2019, a participatory, mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of (1) expert interviews (n = 27) with RMD patients and professional stakeholders, (2) a national paper-based patient survey (n = 766), and (3) focus groups (n = 2) with patient representatives and rheumatologists. The qualitative findings indicate that patients equate personal contact with physical face-to-face contact, which could be reduced by implementing telemedicine, thus negatively influencing the patient–doctor relationship. Correspondingly “no personal contact with the doctor” is the main reason (64%) why 38% of the surveyed patients refuse to try telemedicine. Professional stakeholders expect telemedicine to contribute to the effective allocation of scarce resources in rheumatology care. The main barriers reported by stakeholders were the scarcity of time resources in RMD care, the absence of physical examinations, and organizational challenges associated with the implementation of telemedicine in RMD care. While the exact integration of telemedicine into routine care has yet to be found, the consequences on the patient-physician relationship must be permanently considered.

BACKGROUND The global burden of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) is rising. Professional ressources in rheumatology are scarce. The use of telemedicine could improve access to RMD care. Despite all its promises, telemedicine is still not widely implemented in RMD care. OBJECTIVE To investigate opportunities, barriers, acceptance, and preferences concerning telemedicine among RMD patients and professional stakeholders involved in RMD patient management. METHODS From November 2017 to December 2019 a participatory mixed-methods-study was conducted based on three parts: (1) qualitative expert interviews with RMD patients and professional stakeholders that were used to participatively design (2) a national paper-based patient survey. The survey results were hence discussed in (3) focus groups with patient representatives and rheumatologists. RESULTS Fifteen patients and 26 professional stakeholders participated in the qualitative and further 766 patients took part in the quantitative research. The qualitative interview data reveals opportunities and barriers from the patients' (n=5) and professional stakeholders’(n=23) perspectives: Patients appreciate the potentials of telemedicine to overcome space and time in health care. In contrast, the loss of personal patient-doctor contact is the main concern of patients regarding telemedicine use. Personal contact is equated with physical face-to-face contact, which could be reduced by implementing telemedicine, thus negatively influencing the patient-doctor relationship. Professional stakeholders expect telemedicine to contribute to effective allocation of scarce resources in rheumatology care. This is countered by the absence of physical examinations and organizational challenges as barriers of the use of telemedicine. Both, patients and professional stakeholders describe telemedicine as something broad and complex to define. These qualitative findings align with the survey results: 38% (264/690) of the surveyed patients refuse to try telemedicine, 32% (216/690) are not sure, and 30% (210/690) would like to try telemedicine. ‘No personal contact with the doctor’ (64%, 220/346) was most frequently chosen as a reason against telemedicine, followed by ‘Data security’ (28%, 96/346). Patients prefer to use the telephone (60%, 206/341) over video-consultations (35%, 118/341) as telemedicine use cases. Only 2 (0.3%, 2/714) survey participants indicated that they already had a video consultation with their physician. The focus groups revealed a homogeneous spectrum of opinions with participants confirming the survey results. Patients (n=10) emphasize the high relevance of physical doctor-patient contact. Rheumatologists (n=4) highlight the potential of telemedicine, as a support of existing care structures. However, the exact integration of telemedicine into medical routines remains unclear, especially in view of scarce time resources in rheumatology care. CONCLUSIONS As digital transformation of rheumatology care progresses, the desire for a close patient-doctor relationship persists. Many study participants fear that the use of telemedicine will have negative effects on patient-doctor relationship and therefore oppose the use of telemedicine. We identified further barriers and opportunities, such as information needs, digital infrastructure and equipment requirements, and patient preferences on the composition of digital services, to guide the design and implementation of telemedicine in rheumatology care.

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.

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.