A prospective comparison of telemedicine versus in-person delivery of an interprofessional education program for adults with inflammatory arthritis

Publication type
Journal article
Authors
Kennedy CA, Warmington K, Flewelling C, Shupak R, Papachristos A, Jones C, Linton D, Beaton DE, Lineker SC, Hogg-Johnson S
Date published
2017 Jan 25
Journal
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
197-206
Open Access?
No
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated two modes of delivery of an inflammatory arthritis education program ('Prescription for Education' (RxEd)) in improving arthritis self-efficacy and other secondary outcomes. METHODS: We used a non-randomized, pre-post design to compare videoconferencing (R, remote using telemedicine) versus local (I, in-person) delivery of the program. Data were collected at baseline (T1), immediately following RxEd (T2), and at six months (T3). Self-report questionnaires served as the data collection tool. Measures included demographics, disorder-related, Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (SE), previous knowledge (Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit (ACREU) rheumatoid arthritis knowledge questionnaire), coping efficacy, Illness Intrusiveness, and Effective Consumer Scale. Analysis included: baseline comparisons and longitudinal trends (R vs I groups); direct between-group comparisons; and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analysis. RESULTS: A total of 123 persons attended the program (I: n = 36; R: n = 87) and 111 completed the baseline questionnaire (T1), with follow-up completed by 95% (n = 117) at T2 and 62% (n = 76) at T3. No significant baseline differences were found across patient characteristics and outcome measures. Both groups (R and I) showed immediate effect (improved arthritis SE, mean change (95% confidence interval (CI)): R 1.07 (0.67, 1.48); I 1.48 (0.74, 2.23)) after the program that diminished over six months (mean change (95% CI): R 0.45 (-0.1, 0.1); I 0.73 (-0.25, 1.7)). For each of the secondary outcomes, both groups showed similar trends for improvement (mean change scores (95% CI)) over time. GEE analysis did not show any meaningful differences between groups (R vs I) over time. DISCUSSION: Improvements in arthritis self-efficacy and secondary outcomes displayed similar trends for I and R participant groups