Acceptance of Telerheumatology by Rheumatologists and General Practitioners in Germany: Nationwide Cross-sectional Survey Study

• Main Authors: Muehlensiepen, Felix (Author), Knitza, Johannes (Author), Marquardt, Wenke (Author), Engler, Jennifer (Author), Hueber, Axel (Author), Welcker, Martin (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: JMIR Publications, 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1438-8871; 10.2196/23742
• Keywords: Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics; R858-859.7; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol 23, Iss 3, p e23742 (2021)

BackgroundThe worldwide burden of musculoskeletal diseases is increasing. The number of newly registered rheumatologists has stagnated. Primary care, which takes up a key role in early detection of rheumatic disease, is working at full capacity. COVID-19 and its containment impede rheumatological treatment. Telemedicine in rheumatology (telerheumatology) could support rheumatologists and general practitioners. ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to investigate acceptance and preferences related to the use of telerheumatology care among German rheumatologists and general practitioners. MethodsA nationwide, cross-sectional, self-completed, paper-based survey on telerheumatology care was conducted among outpatient rheumatologists and general practitioners during the pre-COVID-19 period. ResultsA total of 73.3% (349/476) of survey participants rated their knowledge of telemedicine as unsatisfactory, poor, or very poor. The majority of survey participants (358/480, 74.6%) answered that they do not currently use telemedicine, although 62.3% (291/467) would like to. Barriers to the implementation of telemedicine include the purchase of technology equipment (182/292, 62.3%), administration (181/292, 62.0%), and poor reimbursement (156/292, 53.4%). A total of 69.6% (117/168) of the surveyed physicians reckoned that telemedicine could be used in rheumatology. Surveyed physicians would prefer to use telemedicine to communicate directly with other physicians (370/455, 81.3%) than to communicate with patients (213/455, 46.8%). Among treatment phases, 64.4% (291/452) of participants would choose to use telemedicine during follow-up. Half of the participants would choose telecounseling as a specific approach to improve rheumatology care (91/170, 53.5%). ConclusionsBefore COVID-19 appeared, our results indicated generally low use but high acceptance of the implementation of telerheumatology among physicians. Participants indicated that the lack of a structural framework was a barrier to the effective implementation of telerheumatology. Training courses should be introduced to address the limited knowledge on the part of physicians in the use of telemedicine. More research into telerheumatology is required. This includes large-scale randomized controlled trials, economic analyses, and the exploration of user preferences.