Andréa Marques
Effectiveness of remote care interventions: a systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases
Marques, Andréa; Bosch, Philipp; de Thurah, Annette; Meissner, Yvette; Falzon, Louise; Mukhtyar, Chetan; WJ Bijlsma, Johannes; Dejaco, Christian; Stamm, Tanja A
Authors
Philipp Bosch
Annette de Thurah
Yvette Meissner
Louise Falzon
Chetan Mukhtyar
Johannes WJ Bijlsma
Christian Dejaco
Tanja A Stamm
Contributors
Chetan B. Mukhtyar
Other
Alen Zabotti
Other
Johannes Knitza
Other
Aurélie Najm
Other
Nina Østerås
Other
Tim Pelle
Other
Line Raunsbæk Knudsen
Other
Hana Šmucrová
Other
Francis Berenbaum
Other
Meghna Jani
Other
Rinie Geenen
Other
Martin Krusche
Other
Polina Pchelnikova
Other
Savia de Souza
Other
Sara Badreh
Other
Dieter Wiek
Other
Silvia Piantoni
Other
James M. Gwinnutt
Other
Christina Duftner
Other
Helena Canhão
Other
Luca Quartuccio
Other
Nikolay Stoilov
Other
Prof Yeliz Prior Y.Prior@salford.ac.uk
Other
Johannes Bijlsma
Other
Tanja Stamm
Other
Christian Dejaco
Other
Abstract
Objective To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) on different outcomes of remote care compared with face-to-face (F2F) care, its implementation into clinical practice and to identify drivers and barriers in order to inform a task force formulating the EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).
Methods A search strategy was developed and run in Medline (PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently performed standardised data extraction, synthesis and risk of bias (RoB) assessment.
Results A total of 2240 references were identified. Forty-seven of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Remote monitoring (n=35) was most frequently studied, with telephone/video calls being the most common mode of delivery (n=30). Of the 34 studies investigating outcomes of remote care, the majority addressed efficacy and user perception; 34% and 21% of them, respectively, reported a superiority of remote care as compared with F2F care. Time and cost savings were reported as major benefits, technical aspects as major drawback in the 13 studies that investigated drivers and barriers of remote care. No study addressed remote care implementation. The main limitation of the studies identified was the heterogeneity of outcomes and methods, as well as a substantial RoB (50% of studies with high RoB).
Conclusions Remote care leads to similar or better results compared with F2F treatment concerning efficacy, safety, adherence and user perception outcomes, with the limitation of heterogeneity and considerable RoB of the available studies.
| Journal Article Type | Review |
|---|---|
| Acceptance Date | Apr 21, 2022 |
| Publication Date | May 6, 2022 |
| Deposit Date | Jan 3, 2024 |
| Publicly Available Date | Jan 5, 2024 |
| Journal | RMD Open |
| Electronic ISSN | 2056-5933 |
| Publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
| Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002290 |
Files
Published Version
(770 Kb)
PDF
Publisher Licence URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/