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
© 2022. The Author(s)..
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.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:23 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
BMC musculoskeletal disorders - 23(2022), 1 vom: 02. Apr., Seite 312 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Paskins, Zoe [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Journal Article |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 05.04.2022 Date Revised 08.04.2022 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM338967389 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM338967389 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226001846.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1129.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM338967389 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35366845 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Paskins, Zoe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions |b findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 05.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.04.2022 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2022. The Author(s). | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 520 | |a 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 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Osteoporosis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Remote consultation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Rheumatoid arthritis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Telemedicine | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bullock, Laurna |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Manning, Fay |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Bishop, Simon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Campbell, Paul |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Cottrell, Elizabeth |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Partner, G P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jinks, Clare |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Narayanasamy, Melanie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Scott, Ian C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sahota, Opinder |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ryan, Sarah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC musculoskeletal disorders |d 2000 |g 23(2022), 1 vom: 02. Apr., Seite 312 |w (DE-627)NLM111431875 |x 1471-2474 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:23 |g year:2022 |g number:1 |g day:02 |g month:04 |g pages:312 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05273-1 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 23 |j 2022 |e 1 |b 02 |c 04 |h 312 | ||