Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35855564›Full record

ArticleACR open rheumatology2022

Telehealth Made EASY: Understanding Provider Perceptions of Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatology Encounters.

Isaac D Smith, Theresa M Coles, Catherine Howe, Robert Overton, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos, Mary J Solomon, Rong Zhao, Bhargav Adagarla, Jayanth Doss, Ricardo Henao and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Isaac D SmithDepartment of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Duke University Hospital and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3313-4825
Theresa M ColesDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Catherine HoweDepartment of Medicine, Duke University Hospital, Duke University Hospital and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Robert OvertonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Nicoleta Economou-ZavlanosAI Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Mary J SolomonAI Health, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Rong ZhaoDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Bhargav AdagarlaDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jayanth DossDepartment of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Ricardo HenaoDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Megan E B ClowseDepartment of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8579-3470
David L LeverenzDepartment of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2415-0690

Funding

Pfizer 2933673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel scoring system, the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY), to assess provider perceptions of telehealth appropriateness in rheumatology encounters.

methodsThe EASY scoring system prompts providers to rate their own encounters as follows: in-person or telehealth acceptable, EASY = 1; in-person preferred, EASY = 2; or telehealth preferred, EASY = 3. Assessment of the EASY scoring system occurred at a single academic institution from January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021. Data were collected in three rounds: 1) initial survey (31 providers) assessing EASY responsiveness to five hypothetical scenarios, 2) follow-up survey (34 providers) exploring EASY responsiveness to 11 scenario modifications, and 3) assessment of EASYs documented in clinic care.

resultsThe initial and follow-up surveys demonstrated responsiveness of EASYs to different clinical and nonclinical factors. For instance, less than 20% of providers accepted telehealth when starting a biologic for active rheumatoid arthritis, although more than 35% accepted telehealth in the same scenario if the patient lived far away or was well known to the provider. Regarding EASY documentation, 27 providers provided EASYs for 12,381 encounters. According to these scores, telehealth was acceptable or preferred for 29.7% of all encounters, including 21.4% of in-person encounters. Conversely, 24.4% of telehealth encounters were scored as in-person preferred.

conclusionEASY is simple, understandable, and responsive to changes in the clinical scenario. We have successfully accumulated 12,381 EASYs that can be studied in future work to better understand telehealth utility and optimize telehealth triage.

Identifiers

PMID35855564
PMCPMC9555194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.