The Journal of dermatological treatment · 2024
Psoriasis healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey among psoriasis patients (PsoCovidCare).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wortman C D, Godding L T H, Yin Q, Kwee K V, Visch M B, de Jong E M G J, van den Reek J M P A, Tjioe M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, psoriasis care underwent significant changes in consultation methods and treatment management. However, comprehensive data on these changes and patient perceptions are limited.
AIMS: To evaluate the pandemic's implications on psoriasis patients, focusing on access to information, consultation methods, patient satisfaction, disease control assessment, and treatment management changes.
METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed in psoriasis patients from 4 dutch hospitals during the second wave of the pandemic.
RESULTS: Among 551 respondents, approximately 55% received information their treatment in relation to COVID-19 from their treating physician, while 16.3% sought information online. Consultation methods were shifted to remote formats for 43.6% of patients, primarily via phone and the shift was often initiated by physicians. Overall patient satisfaction during the pandemic scored high (8.0), with remote consultations scoring between 8.0-9.0. Patients on biological treatment reported better disease control (8.0), compared to those on topical (6.0) or conventional systemic treatments (7.0). However, within the systemic treatment group and biologics group, a notable percentage interrupted (16.3% resp. 12.9%) or discontinued treatment (14.1 resp. 10.6%) during the pandemic. Disease control was moderate-to-good assessed by 75% of patients receiving face-to-face and 68% receiving remote consultations.
CONCLUSION: Remote care appears to be a viable alternative to face-to-face consultations, with potential benefits in enhancing access to information provided by treating physicians.
AIMS: To evaluate the pandemic's implications on psoriasis patients, focusing on access to information, consultation methods, patient satisfaction, disease control assessment, and treatment management changes.
METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional survey was performed in psoriasis patients from 4 dutch hospitals during the second wave of the pandemic.
RESULTS: Among 551 respondents, approximately 55% received information their treatment in relation to COVID-19 from their treating physician, while 16.3% sought information online. Consultation methods were shifted to remote formats for 43.6% of patients, primarily via phone and the shift was often initiated by physicians. Overall patient satisfaction during the pandemic scored high (8.0), with remote consultations scoring between 8.0-9.0. Patients on biological treatment reported better disease control (8.0), compared to those on topical (6.0) or conventional systemic treatments (7.0). However, within the systemic treatment group and biologics group, a notable percentage interrupted (16.3% resp. 12.9%) or discontinued treatment (14.1 resp. 10.6%) during the pandemic. Disease control was moderate-to-good assessed by 75% of patients receiving face-to-face and 68% receiving remote consultations.
CONCLUSION: Remote care appears to be a viable alternative to face-to-face consultations, with potential benefits in enhancing access to information provided by treating physicians.