JAMA neurology · 2013
Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Dorsey E Ray, Venkataraman Vinayak, Grana Matthew J, Bull Michael T, George Benjamin P, Boyd Cynthia M, Beck Christopher A, Rajan Balaraman, Seidmann Abraham, Biglan Kevin M
Аннотация
IMPORTANCE: The burden of neurological disorders is increasing, but access to care is limited. Providing specialty care to patients via telemedicine could help alleviate this growing problem.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and economic benefits of using web-based videoconferencing (telemedicine) to provide specialty care to patients with Parkinson disease in their homes.
DESIGN: A 7-month, 2-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.
SETTING: Patients' homes and outpatient clinics at 2 academic medical centers.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients with Parkinson disease with Internet access at home.
INTERVENTION: Care from a specialist delivered remotely at home or in person in the clinic.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome variable was feasibility, as measured by the percentage of telemedicine visits completed as scheduled. Secondary outcome measures included clinical benefit, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson Disease Questionnaire, and economic value, as measured by time and travel.
RESULTS: Twenty participants enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to telemedicine (n = 9) or in-person care (n = 11). Of the 27 scheduled telemedicine visits, 25 (93%) were completed, and of the 33 scheduled in-person visits, 30 (91%) were completed (P = .99). In this small study, the change in quality of life did not differ for those randomly assigned to telemedicine compared with those randomly assigned to in-person care (4.0-point improvement vs 6.4-point improvement; P = .61). Compared with in-person visits, each telemedicine visit saved participants, on average, 100 miles of travel and 3 hours of time.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Using web-based videoconferencing to provide specialty care at home is feasible, provides value to patients, and may offer similar clinical benefit to that of in-person care. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the clinical benefits are indeed comparable to those of in-person care and whether the results observed are generalizable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01476306.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and economic benefits of using web-based videoconferencing (telemedicine) to provide specialty care to patients with Parkinson disease in their homes.
DESIGN: A 7-month, 2-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.
SETTING: Patients' homes and outpatient clinics at 2 academic medical centers.
PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients with Parkinson disease with Internet access at home.
INTERVENTION: Care from a specialist delivered remotely at home or in person in the clinic.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome variable was feasibility, as measured by the percentage of telemedicine visits completed as scheduled. Secondary outcome measures included clinical benefit, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson Disease Questionnaire, and economic value, as measured by time and travel.
RESULTS: Twenty participants enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to telemedicine (n = 9) or in-person care (n = 11). Of the 27 scheduled telemedicine visits, 25 (93%) were completed, and of the 33 scheduled in-person visits, 30 (91%) were completed (P = .99). In this small study, the change in quality of life did not differ for those randomly assigned to telemedicine compared with those randomly assigned to in-person care (4.0-point improvement vs 6.4-point improvement; P = .61). Compared with in-person visits, each telemedicine visit saved participants, on average, 100 miles of travel and 3 hours of time.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Using web-based videoconferencing to provide specialty care at home is feasible, provides value to patients, and may offer similar clinical benefit to that of in-person care. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the clinical benefits are indeed comparable to those of in-person care and whether the results observed are generalizable.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01476306.