4.5 Article

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice

期刊

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1

关键词

Telemedicine; Remote consultation; Osteoporosis; Rheumatoid arthritis

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [HTA NIHR127550]
  2. NIHR [CS2018-18-ST2-010]
  3. Royal Osteoporosis Society [430]
  4. Haywood Rheumatology Research and Development Foundation
  5. NIHR Clinical Research Network West Midlands [Improvement and Innovation Strategic Funding]
  6. NIHR Clinical Research Network Scholar Programme
  7. NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands
  8. NIHR Advanced Research Fellowship Award [NIHR300826]
  9. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [NIHR300826] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to explore the acceptability of and preferences for remote consultations among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. The findings show that attitudes towards remote consultations, views on fairness and intervention coherence varied depending on the patients' consultation needs and their perceptions of the pandemic.
Background Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Methods Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. Results Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. Conclusions Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

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

4.5
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