Effectiveness of remote care interventions: a systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of remote care interventions: a systematic review informing the 2022 EULAR Points to Consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

AU - Marques, Andréa

AU - Bosch, Philipp

AU - de Thurah, Annette

AU - Meissner, Yvette

AU - Falzon, Louise

AU - Mukhtyar, Chetan

AU - Bijlsma, Johannes Wj

AU - Dejaco, Christian

AU - Stamm, Tanja A

AU - EULAR task force on Points to Consider for the for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases

AU - Krusche, Martin

N1 - © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

PY - 2022/5

Y1 - 2022/5

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Humans

KW - Musculoskeletal Diseases/therapy

U2 - 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002290

DO - 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002290

M3 - SCORING: Review article

C2 - 35523520

VL - 8

JO - RMD OPEN

JF - RMD OPEN

SN - 2056-5933

IS - 1

M1 - e002290

ER -