OBJECTIVES: Rural veterans with inflammatory arthritis (IA) lack medical access because of geographic barriers. Telemedicine (TM) holds great promise in relieving these disparities. We have prospectively measured patient-centered data surrounding a TM care program at a federal health system and compared these with usual care (UC). METHODS: Veterans with previously established IA were enrolled in TM follow-up. Data collected longitudinally before and after entering the program included Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3), out-of-pocket visit costs and distances traveled, and patient satisfaction instruments. Demographics were recorded. Similar data were collected on a convenience sample of concurrent IA patients receiving UC. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were observed, including 25 receiving TM care and 60 receiving UC. No differences in demographics, satisfaction scores, or RAPID-3 were noted at baseline between groups. Univariate linear regression of cross-sectional baseline data suggests satisfaction instrument scores were predicted by RAPID-3 (β = -0.64/10 points, p = 0.01), as well as distance (β = -0.19/100 miles, p = 0.02) and cost (β = -0.37/$100, p = 0.05). A multivariate model indicates both distance (β = -0.17/100 miles, p = 0.02) and RAPID-3 (β = -0.47/10 points, p < 0.03) were predictors for visit satisfaction. In longitudinal follow-up via TM, satisfaction (Δ = 0.03, p = 0.94) and RAPID-3 (Δ = 0.27, p = 0.89) remained similar to baseline among TM patients, whereas distance traveled (Δ = -384.8 miles/visit, p < 0.01) and visit costs (Δ = -$113.8/visit, p < 0.01) were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes for care delivered via TM were similar to UC, with significant cost and distance savings. Patient-centered factors such as distance to care should be considered in design care delivery models, as they appear to drive patient satisfaction in conjunction with disease control.
OBJECTIVES: Rural veterans with inflammatory arthritis (IA) lack medical access because of geographic barriers. Telemedicine (TM) holds great promise in relieving these disparities. We have prospectively measured patient-centered data surrounding a TM care program at a federal health system and compared these with usual care (UC). METHODS: Veterans with previously established IA were enrolled in TM follow-up. Data collected longitudinally before and after entering the program included Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3), out-of-pocket visit costs and distances traveled, and patient satisfaction instruments. Demographics were recorded. Similar data were collected on a convenience sample of concurrent IApatients receiving UC. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were observed, including 25 receiving TM care and 60 receiving UC. No differences in demographics, satisfaction scores, or RAPID-3 were noted at baseline between groups. Univariate linear regression of cross-sectional baseline data suggests satisfaction instrument scores were predicted by RAPID-3 (β = -0.64/10 points, p = 0.01), as well as distance (β = -0.19/100 miles, p = 0.02) and cost (β = -0.37/$100, p = 0.05). A multivariate model indicates both distance (β = -0.17/100 miles, p = 0.02) and RAPID-3 (β = -0.47/10 points, p < 0.03) were predictors for visit satisfaction. In longitudinal follow-up via TM, satisfaction (Δ = 0.03, p = 0.94) and RAPID-3 (Δ = 0.27, p = 0.89) remained similar to baseline among TM patients, whereas distance traveled (Δ = -384.8 miles/visit, p < 0.01) and visit costs (Δ = -$113.8/visit, p < 0.01) were reduced. CONCLUSIONS:Patient-reported outcomes for care delivered via TM were similar to UC, with significant cost and distance savings. Patient-centered factors such as distance to care should be considered in design care delivery models, as they appear to drive patient satisfaction in conjunction with disease control.
Authors: Elizabeth D Ferucci; Peter Holck; Gretchen M Day; Tammy L Choromanski; Sarah L Freeman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Jasvinder A Singh; John S Richards; Elizabeth Chang; Amy Joseph; Bernard Ng Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Anisha B Dua; Adam Kilian; Rebecca Grainger; Sarah A Fantus; Zachary S Wallace; Frank Buttgereit; Beth L Jonas Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Brook Calton; William Patrick Shibley; Eve Cohen; Steven Z Pantilat; Michael W Rabow; David L O'Riordan; Kara E Bischoff Journal: Palliat Med Rep Date: 2020-12-28
Authors: Jesús Tornero-Molina; Fernando Sánchez-Alonso; Manuel Fernández-Prada; María-Luisa Bris-Ochaita; Alberto Sifuentes-Giraldo; Javier Vidal-Fuentes Journal: Reumatol Clin (Engl Ed) Date: 2020-10-29
Authors: Joel M Gelfand; April W Armstrong; Stacie Bell; George L Anesi; Andrew Blauvelt; Cassandra Calabrese; Erica D Dommasch; Steve R Feldman; Dafna Gladman; Leon Kircik; Mark Lebwohl; Vincent Lo Re; George Martin; Joseph F Merola; Jose U Scher; Sergio Schwartzman; James R Treat; Abby S Van Voorhees; Christoph T Ellebrecht; Justine Fenner; Anthony Ocon; Maha N Syed; Erica J Weinstein; Jessica Smith; George Gondo; Sue Heydon; Samantha Koons; Christopher T Ritchlin Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 15.487