4.7 Article

Online Care Versus In-Person Care for Improving Quality of Life in Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Equivalency Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 139, 期 5, 页码 1037-1044

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2018.09.039

关键词

-

资金

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award [IHS-071502-IC]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This 12-month, pragmatic, randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated whether an online, collaborative connected-health model results in equivalent improvements in quality of life compared with in-person care for psoriasis. Overall, 296 adults with physician-diagnosed psoriasis from ambulatory clinics were randomly assigned to either online or in-person care; all were analyzed for outcomes. In the online group, patients and primary care providers sought dermatologists' care directly and asynchronously online. The in-person group sought care face to face. Interventions did not allow blinding of participants; investigators were blinded during analysis. Across 12 months, for the online group, the mean +/- standard deviation decline in Skindex-16 from baseline across follow-up visits was 9.02 +/- 20.67 compared with 10.55 +/- 23.50 for the in-person group. The difference in Skindex-16 between the two groups was -0.83 (95% confidence interval = -5.18 to 3.51), and this was within the equivalence margin (+/- 7.0). For the online group, the mean +/- standard deviation decline in Dermatology Life Quality Index was 1.64 +/- 4.34 compared with 1.18 +/- 4.77 for the in-person group. The difference in Dermatology Life Quality Index between the two groups was -0.45 (95% confidence interval = -1.29 to 0.38) and was within the equivalence margin (+/- 2.5). In conclusion, the online model was as effective as in-person care in improving quality of life among psoriasis patients. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02358135).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据