Interobserver Agreement and Satisfaction With the use of Telemedicine for Evaluating low Back Pain: A Primary, Observational, Cross-Sectional, Analytical Study.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-16 DOI:10.1177/21925682231194453
Jair Moreira Dias, Adriano Fernando Mendes, Eduardo Pestana de Aguiar, Luan Costa Silveira, Maria Fernanda Noel Dias, Nádia Rezende Barbosa Raposo
{"title":"Interobserver Agreement and Satisfaction With the use of Telemedicine for Evaluating low Back Pain: A Primary, Observational, Cross-Sectional, Analytical Study.","authors":"Jair Moreira Dias, Adriano Fernando Mendes, Eduardo Pestana de Aguiar, Luan Costa Silveira, Maria Fernanda Noel Dias, Nádia Rezende Barbosa Raposo","doi":"10.1177/21925682231194453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>A primary, observational, cross-sectional, analytical study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The development of a framework for systematic telemedicine (TM) for orthopedic physicians in frequent clinical care may increase agreement in diagnosis and satisfaction among users of TM. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the agreement in the diagnosis of low back pain (LBP) between TM, systematized by a self-completed digital questionnaire, and face-to-face (FF) care in patients with LBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included adults up to 75 years of age with LBP for more than 6 weeks. They were evaluated at 2 independent time points (TM and FF) by different orthopedists with 3 different levels of expertise. Professionals evaluated the sample without prior knowledge of the diagnosis, and each orthopedist provided a diagnosis. Diagnostic agreement was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the visit and satisfaction among healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 168 participants were eligible, of whom 126 sought care through TM and 122 sought FF care (mean age, 47 years [range, 18-75 years]; 66.4% women). The agreement among professionals regarding the diagnosis was moderate (kappa = .585, <i>P</i> = .001). TM was faster than FF (11.9 minutes (standard deviation = 4.1) vs 18.6 (SD = 6.9), <i>P</i> < .001). Professional satisfaction was higher among spine specialists than among orthopedic residents and orthopedists who were not specialists in spine surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Agreement in diagnosis was moderate for TM, with a 30% shorter visit duration than FF. Satisfaction varied by professional expertise and was higher among spine specialists than among professionals with other expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"482-489"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11877663/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231194453","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: A primary, observational, cross-sectional, analytical study.

Objective: The development of a framework for systematic telemedicine (TM) for orthopedic physicians in frequent clinical care may increase agreement in diagnosis and satisfaction among users of TM. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the agreement in the diagnosis of low back pain (LBP) between TM, systematized by a self-completed digital questionnaire, and face-to-face (FF) care in patients with LBP.

Methods: This study included adults up to 75 years of age with LBP for more than 6 weeks. They were evaluated at 2 independent time points (TM and FF) by different orthopedists with 3 different levels of expertise. Professionals evaluated the sample without prior knowledge of the diagnosis, and each orthopedist provided a diagnosis. Diagnostic agreement was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the duration of the visit and satisfaction among healthcare professionals.

Results: A total of 168 participants were eligible, of whom 126 sought care through TM and 122 sought FF care (mean age, 47 years [range, 18-75 years]; 66.4% women). The agreement among professionals regarding the diagnosis was moderate (kappa = .585, P = .001). TM was faster than FF (11.9 minutes (standard deviation = 4.1) vs 18.6 (SD = 6.9), P < .001). Professional satisfaction was higher among spine specialists than among orthopedic residents and orthopedists who were not specialists in spine surgery.

Conclusion: Agreement in diagnosis was moderate for TM, with a 30% shorter visit duration than FF. Satisfaction varied by professional expertise and was higher among spine specialists than among professionals with other expertise.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用远程医疗评估腰背痛的观察者间一致性和满意度:一项初级、观察性、横断面分析研究。
研究设计目的:为经常进行临床护理的骨科医生制定系统的远程医疗(TM)框架,可提高 TM 用户的诊断一致性和满意度:为经常进行临床护理的骨科医生开发一个系统的远程医疗(TM)框架,可提高诊断的一致性和 TM 用户的满意度。因此,本研究旨在估算通过自填数字问卷系统化远程医疗与面对面医疗对腰背痛(LBP)患者诊断的一致性:这项研究包括年龄在 75 岁以下、患有 6 周以上腰痛的成年人。他们在 2 个独立的时间点(TM 和 FF)接受了由 3 个不同专业水平的骨科医生进行的评估。专业人员在事先不了解诊断结果的情况下对样本进行评估,每位骨科医生都会提供诊断结果。诊断一致是主要结果。次要结果是就诊时间和医护人员的满意度:共有 168 人符合条件,其中 126 人通过 TM 就诊,122 人通过 FF 就诊(平均年龄 47 岁[18-75 岁];66.4% 为女性)。专业人员对诊断结果的一致性为中等(kappa = .585,P = .001)。TM 比 FF 更快(11.9 分钟(标准差 = 4.1)对 18.6 分钟(标准差 = 6.9),P < .001)。脊柱专科医生的职业满意度高于骨科住院医师和非脊柱外科专科医生:结论:TM 的诊断一致性适中,就诊时间比 FF 短 30%。满意度因专业知识而异,脊柱专科医生的满意度高于具有其他专业知识的专科医生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
期刊最新文献
Updating Prognostic Assessment for Spinal Metastases With a Combined Model of the Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score and the New Katagiri Score. Prone Transpsoas Fusion for Grade I - II Symptomatic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis - Prospective Cohort Study of 108 Patients. Scoliosis School Screening Using Electronic Devices in Henan Province, China: An Exploratory Study. Differential Impact of Depression and Psychotic Disorders on Complications, Costs, and Discharge After Single-Level Lumbar Fusion. Comparing Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Discectomy Versus Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1