Addressing rural and remote access disparities for patients with inflammatory arthritis through video‐conferencing and innovative inter‐professional care models

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients followed longitudinally using video-conferencing and inter-professional care support have comparable disease control to those followed in traditional in-person rheumatology clinics. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial for 85 RA patients allocated to either traditional in-person rheumatology follow-up or video-conferenced follow-up with urban-based rheumatologists and rural in-person physical therapist examiners. Follow-up was every 3 months for 9 months. Outcome measures included disease activity metrics (disease activity in 28 joints with CRP measure score DAS28-CRP, and RA disease activity index RADAI), modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ), quality of life (EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire EQ5D) and patient satisfaction (nine-item visit-specific satisfaction questionnaire VSQ9). RESULTS: Of 85 participants, 54 were randomized to the video-conferencing team model and 31 to the traditional clinic (control group). Dropout rates were high, with only 31 (57%) from the video-conferencing and 23 (74%) from the control group completing the study. The mean age for study participants was 56 years; 20% were male. Mean RA disease duration was 13.9 years. There were no significant between-group differences in DAS28-CRP, RADAI, mHAQ or EQ5D scores at baseline or over the study period. Satisfaction rates were high in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between inter-professional video-conferencing and traditional rheumatology clinic for both the provision of effective follow-up care and patient satisfaction for established RA patients. High dropout rates reinforce the need for consultation with patients' needs and preferences in developing models of care. While use of video-conferencing/telehealth technologies may be a distinct advantage for some patients, there may be loss of travel-related auxiliary benefits for others.