Dataset Information

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the UK: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time.

Design

Mixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study.

Setting

UK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England.

Participants

People in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant's perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks.

Results

703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18-60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home.

Conclusions

People with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK.

SUBMITTER: Smith TO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8182755 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFoot health problems are common in the general population, and particularly so in people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal disorders (RMD). Several clinical guidelines state that people with RMDs should have access to foot health services, although service capacity is often limited. The current COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for alternative ways to provide patient care. The aim of this clinical audit was to review a newly implemented telephone follow-up appointment service conducted within the Rheumatology Podiatry Department in Leeds, UK.MethodsFifty-eight patients attending the Rheumatology Podiatry Department at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust were contacted by telephone approximately 6-8 weeks following initial intervention. During the telephone consultation, all patients were asked pre-defined questions relating to their symptoms, intervention efficacy, the need for further appointments and their preference for the type of consultation. To assess the cost of the telephone consultation the number of attempts needed in order to make successful contact, the duration of the call and the number of telephone follow-up appointments completed in a working day were also recorded.ResultsTwenty-five patients (43%) were successfully contacted within the 6-8 weeks stipulated time frame and were included in the analysis. Of the 25 contacted, twelve (48%) patients were successfully contacted on the first attempt. Ten (40%) were successfully contacted on the second attempt. The remaining three patients (12%) required 3 or more attempts to make successful contact. Telephone consultations were estimated not to last longer than 10 min, including notes screening and documentation. Eleven patients (44%) reported an improvement in their symptoms, thirteen (52%) reported no change and one patient (4%) reported their symptoms to be worse.ConclusionTelephone follow-up consultations may be a potentially cost-effective alternative to face-to-face appointments when implemented in a Rheumatology Podiatry Department, and provide an alternative way of providing care, especially when capacity for face-to-face contact is limited. The potential cost saving and efficiency benefits of this service are likely to be enhanced when telephone consultations are pre-arranged with patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organisation declared the novel Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic on 11th March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in its grip. At the time of writing, there were more than 767,972,961 million confirmed cases and over 6,950,655 million deaths. While the main policy focus has been on controlling the virus and ensuring vaccine roll-out and uptake, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be long-term, with certain population groups affected more than others.MethodsThe overall objectives of our 'Coronavirus: Mental Health and the Pandemic' study were to explore UK adults' experiences of the Coronavirus pandemic and to gain insights into the mental health impacts, population-level changes over time, current and future mental health needs, and how these can best be addressed. The wider mixed-methods study consisted of repeated cross-sectional surveys and embedded qualitative sub-studies including in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with the wider UK adult population. For this particular inequalities and mental health sub-study, we used mixed methods data from our cross-sectional surveys and we carried out three Focus Group Discussions with a maximum variation sample from across the UK adult population. The discussions covered the broader topic of 'Inequalities and mental health during the Coronavirus pandemic in the UK' and took place online between April and August 2020. Focus Groups transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis in NVIVO. Cross-sectional survey data were analysed using STATA for descriptive statistics.ResultsThree broad main themes emerged, each supporting a number of sub-themes: (1) Impacts of the pandemic; (2) Moving forward: needs and recommendations; (3) Coping mechanisms and resilience. Findings showed that participants described their experiences of the pandemic in relation to its impact on themselves and on different groups of people. Their experiences illustrated how the pandemic and subsequent measures had exacerbated existing inequalities and created new ones, and triggered various emotional responses. Participants also described their coping strategies and what worked and did not work for them, as well as support needs and recommendations for moving forward through, and out of, the pandemic; all of which are valuable learnings to be considered in policy making for improving mental health and for ensuring future preparedness.ConclusionsThe pandemic is taking a long-term toll on the nations' mental health which will continue to have impacts for years to come. It is therefore crucial to learn the vital lessons learned from this pandemic. Specific as well as whole-government policies need to respond to this, address inequalities and the different needs across the life-course and across society, and take a holistic approach to mental health improvement across the UK.

Project description:BackgroundQuality of care is gaining increasing attention in research, clinical practice, and health care planning. Methods for quality assessment and monitoring, such as quality indicators (QIs), are needed to ensure health services in line with norms and recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness of a newly developed QI set for rehabiliation for people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).MethodsWe used two yes/no questionnaires to measure quality from both the provider and patient perspectives, scored in a range of 0-100% (best score, 100%). We collected QI data from a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial (the BRIDGE trial) that compared traditional rehabilitation with a new BRIDGE program designed to improve quality and continuity in rehabilitation. Assessment of the responsiveness was performed as a pre-post evaluation: Providers at rehabilitation centers in Norway completed the center-reported QIs (n = 19 structure indicators) before (T1) and 6-8 weeks after (T2) adding the BRIDGE intervention. The patient-reported QIs comprised 14 process and outcomes indicators, measuring quality in health services from the patient perspective. Pre-intervention patient-reported data were collected from patients participating in the traditional program (T1), and post-intervention data were collected from patients participating in the BRIDGE program (T2). The patient groups were comparable. We used a construct approach, with a priori hypotheses regarding the expected direction and magnitude of PR changes between T1 and T2. For acceptable responsivess, at least 75% of the hypotheses needed to be confirmed.ResultsAll eight participating centers and 82% of the patients (293/357) completed the QI questionnaires. Responsiveness was acceptable, with 44 of 53 hypotheses (83%) confirmed for single indicators and 3 of 4 hypotheses (75%) confirmed for the sum scores.ConclusionWe found this QI set for rehabilitation to be responsive when applied in rehabilitation services for adults with various RMD conditions. We recommend this QI set as a timely method for establishing quality-of-rehabilitation benchmarks, promoting important progress toward high-quality rehabilitation, and tracking trends over time.Trial registrationThe study is part of the larger BRIDGE trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03102814).

Project description:Telemedicine and digital health represent alternative approaches for clinical practice; indeed, its potential in healthcare services for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and disease monitoring is widely acknowledged. These are all crucial issues to consider when dealing with chronic Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs). The aim was to determine the current state of telemedicine in the field of rheumatology, considering the tools and devices in use as well as the Patient Reported Outcomes. A scoping review was performed following the PRISMA-ScR, retrieving articles through five databases from 1990 to 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (I) adult patients with RMDs, (II) original research papers in the English language with available abstracts, and (III) telehealth and telemedicine are provided as healthcare services. Within the 62 included studies, multiple tools of telemedicine were used: 21/62 websites/online platforms, 18/62 mobile applications, 16/62 telephone contacts, 5/62 video-consultations, and 1/62 wearable devices. Outcomes were classified based on the economic, clinical, and humanistic framework. Clinical outcomes assessed through digital tools were pain, disease activity, and serum uric acid levels. Humanistic outcomes have been grouped according to four categories (e.g., mental and physical function, health management, and health perception). The heterogeneity of digital tools in the field of rheumatology highlights the challenge of implementing reliable research into clinical practice. Effective telerehabilitation models have been presented, and the use of a tight control strategy has also been mentioned. Future research should focus on establishing studies on other RMDs as well as summarizing and formulating clinical guidelines for RMDs. Key Points • Evidence for the usefulness of telemedicine and digital health for managing and monitoring rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases is progressively increasing. • Several digital tools effectively measure clinical and humanistic and patient reported outcomes in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. • Integrating diverse digital tools in rheumatology is challenging yet promising. • Future research should focus on developing standardized recommendations for practical use of telemedicine in daily practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore orthopaedic and musculoskeletal clinicians' views and experiences of legal, safety, safeguarding and security issues regarding the use of virtual consultations (VC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. A secondary objective was to suggest ways to overcome these issues.MethodsA mixed method cross-sectional survey was conducted, seeking the views and experiences of orthopaedic and musculoskeletal medically qualified and Allied Health Professionals in the United Kingdom. Descriptive statistical analysis was employed for quantitative data and a qualitative content analysis undertaken for qualitative data. Findings were presented in accordance with the four key issues.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety professionals (206 physiotherapists, 78 medically qualified professionals, 6 'other' therapists) participated in the survey. Of the 290 participants, 260 (90%) were not using VC prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 248 respondents (86%) were unsure whether their professional indemnity insurance covered VC, 136 (47%) had considered how they would handle an issue of safeguarding whilst the remainder had not, 126 (43%) had considered what they would do if, during a virtual consultation, a patient suffered an injury (e.g. bang on their head) or a fall (e.g. mechanical or a medical event like syncope) and 158 (54%) reported they felt the current technological solutions are secure in terms of patient data. Qualitative data provided additional context to support the quantitative findings such as validity of indemnification, accuracy of diagnosis and consent using VC, safeguarding issues; and security and sharing of data. Potential changes to practice have been proposed to address these issues.ConclusionsVC have been rapidly deployed since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic often without clear guidance or consensus on many important issues. This study identified legal, safeguarding, safety and security issues. There is an urgent need to address these and develop local and national guidance and frameworks to facilitate ongoing safe virtual orthopaedic practice beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.