4.4 Article

Perspectives of Patients With Rheumatic Diseases in the Early Phase ofCOVID-19

期刊

ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
卷 72, 期 9, 页码 1189-1195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acr.24347

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine health perceptions of patients with rheumatic diseases in the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods Rheumatology patients at a single center received via text message the Australian Rheumatology AssociationCOVID-19 information sheet and an invitation to participate in a deidentified survey. Patient concerns regarding risks conferred by their rheumatologic disease or medications, impact of receiving the information sheet on the likelihood of staying on medication, and acceptance of telehealth were ascertained. Results A total of 2,630 patients received the text message, and the survey response rate was 21% (n = 550). The mean +/- SDage of the participants was 52 +/- 15.2 years, and 75.3% were female. Participants' highest ranked concern was that their medications would increase the severity of theirCOVID-19 symptoms (76.1%). The highest levels of concern were seen in patients taking combination conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or a biologic/targeted syntheticDMARD. There was no association between prednisolone dose and concern. While 63% of patients planned to continue their antirheumatic medications, a further 30% were more likely to continue taking their medications because of receiving the information. Telehealth was acceptable to 98.4% of patients, but 28.1% felt this was only appropriate while infection control measures were in place. Conclusion Concerns regarding the risk ofCOVID-19 among patients taking antirheumatic drugs are common. Proactive dissemination of information is needed to address misconceptions related to medication risk, improve medication adherence, and minimize the risk of flares. Telehealth is acceptable to most patients during theCOVID-19 pandemic.

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

4.4
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