Journal Article

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

Mukhtyar, Chetan, Piantoni, Silvia, Krusche, Martin, Zabotti, Alen, Duftner, Christina, Knitza, Johannes, Stoilov, Nikolay, Østerås, Nina, Jani, Meghna, Geenen, Rinie, de Thurah, Annette, Marques, Andréa, Badreh, Sara, Šmucrová, Hana, Thurah, Annette de, Knudsen, Line Raunsbæk, Meissner, Yvette, Bijlsma, Johannes WJ, Quartuccio, Luca, Souza, Savia de, Stamm, Tanja, Bosch, Philipp, Wiek, Dieter, Falzon, Louise, Stamm, Tanja A, Canhão, Helena, Bijlsma, Johannes, Gwinnutt, James M., Berenbaum, Francis, Najm, Aurélie, Pchelnikova, Polina, Mukhtyar, Chetan B., Pelle, Tim, Prior, Yeliz, Dejaco, Christian

2022

Overview

ObjectiveTo 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsRemote 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.

• Publisher: EULAR,BMJ Publishing Group LTD,BMJ Publishing Group
• Subject: autoimmune diseases / Bias / Clinical medicine / Cost analysis / COVID-19 / Humans / Intervention / Medical screening / Miscellaneous / Musculoskeletal diseases / Musculoskeletal Diseases - therapy / patient care team / Patient education / patient reported outcome measures / Qualitative research / Rehabilitation / Rheumatology / Smartphones / Systematic review / Task forces / Telemedicine