4.4 Review

Telerheumatology: before, during, and after a global pandemic

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 33, 期 3, 页码 262-269

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000790

关键词

COVID-19; rheumatoid arthritis; telehealth; telerheumatology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Telerheumatology visits were found to be noninferior to in-person visits and are often more time and cost effective for patients. Both clinicians and patients had positive attitudes towards the use of telerheumatology, seeing its usefulness even beyond the pandemic. However, some of the most vulnerable patients still lack the basic resources needed for telehealth visits.
Purpose of review In early 2020, the COVID-19 global pandemic shifted most healthcare to remote delivery methods to protect patients, clinicians, and hospital staff. Such remote care delivery methods include the use of telehealth technologies including clinical video telehealth or telephone visits. Prior to this, research on the acceptability, feasibility, and efficacy of telehealth applied to rheumatology, or telerheumatology, has been limited. Recent findings Telerheumatology visits were found to be noninferior to in-person visits and are often more time and cost effective for patients. Clinicians and patients both noted the lack of a physical exam in telehealth visits and patients missed the opportunity to have lab work done or other diagnostic tests they are afforded with in-person visits. Overall, patients and clinicians had positive attitudes toward the use of telerheumatology and agreed on its usefulness, even beyond the pandemic. Although telerheumatology has the potential to expand the reach of rheumatology practice, some of the most vulnerable patients still lack the most basic resources required for a telehealth visit. As the literature on telerheumatology continues to expand, attention should be paid to health equity, the digital divide, as well as patient preferences in order to foster true shared decision-making over telehealth.

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