ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preferences towards digital health technologies: a scoping review.Health economics review · 2026Review
- Older Chinese migrants' experiences of remote primary care in England: a semi-structured interview study.BJGP open · 2026Article
- The Michael Mason prize: development and feasibility testing of a complex intervention to improve adherence to fracture prevention medicine.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Remote Consultations in England During COVID-19: Challenges in Data Quality, Linkage, and Research Validity.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Article
- What is the impact of a shift to remote consultations? A qualitative interview study in primary and secondary healthcare.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Hybrid telerehabilitation approach for patellofemoral pain management in South African runners: a feasibility case series.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Experiences and Views of Older Adults of South Asian, Black African, and Caribbean Backgrounds About the Digitalization of Primary Care Services Since the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Patient-clinician dynamics in remote consultations: a qualitative study of cardiology and rheumatology outpatient clinics in the UK.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Digital health in musculoskeletal care: where are we heading?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Digital exclusion as a potential cause of inequalities in access to care: a survey in people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2023Article
- The Impact of Telemedicine in the Diagnosis of Erythema Migrans during the COVID Pandemic: A Comparison with In-Person Diagnosis in the Pre-COVID Era.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.
methodsThree UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled.
resultsFindings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication.
conclusionsAcceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.