Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleRheumatoid Arthritis

Evaluating Factors Associated With Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatoid Arthritis Encounters Using the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY)

Isaac D. Smith, Mary J. Solomon, Hillary Mulder, Catherine Sims, Theresa M. Coles, Robert Overton, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos, Rong Zhao, Bhargav Adagarla, Jayanth Doss, Ricardo Henao, Megan E.B. Clowse, Hayden Bosworth and David L. Leverenz
The Journal of Rheumatology August 2024, 51 (8) 759-764; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2024-0014
Isaac D. Smith
1I.D. Smith, MD, MSc, C. Sims, MD, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, and Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Isaac D. Smith
  • For correspondence: isaac.smith063{at}duke.edu
Mary J. Solomon
2M.J. Solomon, MS, AI Health, Duke University School of Medicine, and Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hillary Mulder
3H. Mulder, MS, R. Overton, MS, R. Zhao, B. Adagarla, MS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Sims
1I.D. Smith, MD, MSc, C. Sims, MD, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine, and Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Catherine Sims
Theresa M. Coles
4T.M. Coles, PhD, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Theresa M. Coles
Robert Overton
3H. Mulder, MS, R. Overton, MS, R. Zhao, B. Adagarla, MS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos
5N. Economou-Zavlanos, PhD, AI Health, Duke University School of Medicine, and Office of Academic Solutions and Information Systems, Duke Health Technology Solutions, Duke Health;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rong Zhao
3H. Mulder, MS, R. Overton, MS, R. Zhao, B. Adagarla, MS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bhargav Adagarla
3H. Mulder, MS, R. Overton, MS, R. Zhao, B. Adagarla, MS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jayanth Doss
6J. Doss, MD, MPH, M.E.B. Clowse, MD, MPH, D.L. Leverenz, MD, MEd, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jayanth Doss
Ricardo Henao
7R. Henao, PhD, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ricardo Henao
Megan E.B. Clowse
6J. Doss, MD, MPH, M.E.B. Clowse, MD, MPH, D.L. Leverenz, MD, MEd, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Megan E.B. Clowse
Hayden Bosworth
8H. Bosworth, PhD, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, and Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, and Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hayden Bosworth
David L. Leverenz
6J. Doss, MD, MPH, M.E.B. Clowse, MD, MPH, D.L. Leverenz, MD, MEd, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Duke University School of Medicine;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David L. Leverenz
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective Telehealth has been proposed as a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate factors associated with telehealth appropriateness in outpatient RA encounters.

Methods A prospective cohort study (January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021) was conducted using electronic health record data from outpatient RA encounters in a single academic rheumatology practice. Rheumatology providers rated the telehealth appropriateness of their own encounters using the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY) immediately following each encounter. Robust Poisson regression with generalized estimating equations modeling was used to evaluate the association of telehealth appropriateness with patient demographics, RA clinical characteristics, comorbid noninflammatory causes of joint pain, previous and current encounter characteristics, and provider characteristics.

Results During the study period, 1823 outpatient encounters with 1177 unique patients with RA received an EASY score from 25 rheumatology providers. In the final multivariate model, factors associated with increased telehealth appropriateness included higher average provider preference for telehealth in prior encounters (relative risk [RR] 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31), telehealth as the current encounter modality (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.95-2.64), and increased patient age (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09). Factors associated with decreased telehealth appropriateness included moderate (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96) and high (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.70) RA disease activity and if the previous encounters were conducted by telehealth (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95).

Conclusion In this study, telehealth appropriateness was most associated with provider preference, the current and previous encounter modality, and RA disease activity. Other factors like patient demographics, RA medications, and comorbid noninflammatory causes of joint pain were not associated with telehealth appropriateness.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • access to health care
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • telemedicine

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic drastically altered the way rheumatologists provide clinical care, forcing the rapid adoption of telehealth for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA is the most common autoimmune diagnosis seen by rheumatologists, and during the initial COVID-19 transition, global reports estimate that between 40% and 90% of all outpatient rheumatology encounters occurred through telehealth.1-3

Previous studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of telehealth for patients with RA who have low disease activity (LDA) or stable disease activity.4-6 However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with RA with moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA) levels were also seen by telehealth with unknown repercussions. Whereas survey data from rheumatology providers and patients suggest that telehealth is an accessible and acceptable option for many patients,7-9 there is currently no established method for identifying which RA encounters are appropriate for telehealth care.

The Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY) was developed and tested by our research group to help distinguish which outpatient rheumatology encounters are appropriate for telehealth vs in-person care, according to rheumatology providers.10,11 The objective for this study was to evaluate factors associated with telehealth appropriateness in outpatient RA encounters.

METHODS

EASY score collection. We conducted a prospective cohort study of outpatient rheumatology encounters at Duke Health from January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021. During the study period, all Doctor of Medicine (MD)/Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) faculty, advanced practice providers (APPs), and fellows in the rheumatology division were invited to document EASY scores after each rheumatology outpatient encounter with an established patient (ie, after each follow-up visit). The development of the EASY score and evidence of its validity have been previously published.10,11

The EASY scoring system is intended to reflect providers’ perceptions of telehealth appropriateness for each outpatient encounter after the visit is concluded.10 In response to the prompt, “Which of the following encounter types would have been most appropriate for today’s visit (irrespective of the pandemic)?” providers rate their own encounters as follows: in-person or telehealth acceptable (EASY = 1), in-person preferred (EASY = 2), or telehealth preferred (EASY = 3; Supplementary Figure S1, available with the online version of this article). For the purposes of this study, telehealth appropriateness was evaluated as a binomial variable based on whether telehealth was acceptable or preferred for the encounter (EASY = 1 or 3) or in-person evaluation was preferred (EASY = 2).

Both in-person and telehealth (video or telephone) encounters were eligible to receive an EASY score. Only follow-up visits that received an EASY score were included in the study because new patient visits are generally conducted in-person. Encounters with patients who were not seen by a rheumatologist in our health system prior to the beginning of the study period were excluded in order to allow for comparisons with previous encounters, satisfy our RA definition, and avoid unintentionally including new patient visits in our analysis. The study did permit the use of multiple EASY scores per individual patient, provided each EASY score reflected a unique outpatient rheumatology encounter. EASY scores from providers who documented < 20 EASY scores during the study period were excluded to avoid including scores recorded by providers with minimal experience using the EASY scoring system.

Defining RA encounters. This study was limited to outpatient rheumatology encounters with adult patients with RA. To satisfy this requirement, an algorithm was employed to identify patients with RA from the electronic health record (EHR). This algorithm required both documented RA International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) codes from ≥ 2 discrete outpatient encounters and a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) prescription during the study period.12 An additional targeted search for patients with RA who were not receiving DMARD therapy was performed among outpatient rheumatology encounters using only ICD-10 codes for RA, and manual chart review was performed to confirm the RA diagnosis for these patients.

The medical record of each patient with RA was then screened against a comprehensive list of ICD-10 codes for other autoimmune inflammatory conditions, including systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren syndrome, systemic sclerosis, myositis, mixed connective tissue disease, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, seronegative spondyloarthropathies, systemic vasculitis, and sarcoidosis, among others. If an ICD-10 code for one of these conditions was present, manual chart review was performed to verify the diagnosis, and all patients with a confirmed additional or alternative autoimmune inflammatory disease were excluded.

Variables of interest. Variables evaluated as potential factors associated with telehealth appropriateness were extracted from the EHR for each outpatient RA encounter that received an EASY score. These variables were evaluated at the encounter level rather than the patient level to better reflect real-time decision making by providers in response to changing clinical scenarios over time.

Demographic variables included age, sex, self-reported race and ethnicity, insurance type, and service area (ie, distance traveled to clinic by zip code). RA clinical characteristics included seropositivity status, number and type of DMARDs used, patient-reported disease activity measured by the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3) score,13 and comorbid noninflammatory causes of joint pain (ie, noninflammatory arthritis composite, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia).

Data on DMARD use were extracted from the medication list attached to each encounter and were divided into conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and Janus kinase inhibitors. If no DMARDs were identified using this method, manual chart review of the encounter was performed to capture potential missing medication data. RA disease activity was assessed categorically with RAPID-3 scores: < 1 = remission, 1.1-2 = LDA, 2.1-4 = MDA, and > 4 = HDA.13 The presence of comorbid noninflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, or fibromyalgia during the encounter was evaluated using ICD-10 codes attached to the encounter, and the noninflammatory arthritis composite included unspecified forms of arthritis/arthropathy, bursopathies, enthesopathies, hypermobility, myalgias, and soft-tissue disorders related to overuse and pressure.

Previous and current encounter characteristics were also assessed, including previous encounter modality (in-person vs telehealth), whether the previous encounter was conducted by a different provider, current encounter modality (in-person vs telehealth), and time since last visit.

Finally, we assessed variables describing provider characteristics. These provider characteristics included average provider preference for telehealth from prior encounters and average provider modality (in-person vs telehealth) for prior encounters. Average provider preference for telehealth was assessed on a scale of 0-1, where a value of 0 implied that all of a provider’s previous EASY scores indicated in-person preferred (EASY = 2), and a value of 1 implied that all of a provider’s previous EASY scores indicated telehealth was appropriate (EASY = 1 or 3). Average provider modality on prior encounters was also assessed on a scale of 0-1, where a value of 0 implied that all of a provider’s previous encounters were conducted in-person, and a value of 1 implied that all a provider’s previous encounters were conducted by telehealth.

Statistical analysis. Robust Poisson regression with log link was used to evaluate the association of the variables of interest with telehealth appropriateness (telehealth appropriate [EASY = 1 or 3] vs in-person preferred [EASY = 2]) of outpatient RA encounters. Associations were evaluated at the encounter level rather than the patient level, as previously described. As a result, individual patients could have multiple encounters within the health system during the study period. To account for repeated measures, the model was fit using generalized estimating equations with an unstructured correlation matrix.14 All predesignated variables of interest were included in the model to assess the relative strength of each variable’s association with telehealth appropriateness. Each variable of interest was also modeled individually in a univariate fashion. Predetermined reference variables were chosen for categorical variables that generally reflected the largest subgroup of each variable (eg, female sex, White race, distance traveled to clinic ≤ 30 miles, previous encounter in-person). Relative risks (RR) with associated 95% CIs were used to assess the significance of all associations, and all statistical analyses were conducted using R version 4.2.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing). This study was approved by the Duke Health Institutional Review Board (no. Pro00105997). The datasets generated during the study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

RESULTS

From January 1, 2021, to August 31, 2021, 1971 outpatient RA encounters received an EASY rating. Encounters with patients not seen by rheumatologists in our health system prior to January 1, 2021, were excluded (n = 134). Three providers documented < 20 EASY ratings (14 ratings total), and these encounters were also excluded. After these exclusions, the final dataset included 1823 outpatient encounters with 1177 unique patients with RA. EASY scores were provided by 25 rheumatology providers (15 MD/DO attendings, 7 APPs, 3 fellows).

Patient characteristics and RA clinical characteristics were assessed and reported at the encounter level (N = 1823). Outpatient RA encounters were primarily with female patients (80.6%), and the median patient age was 62.9 (Table 1). Most encounters were with patients that self-identified their race as Black (n = 496, 27.2%) or White (n = 1203, 66%), and 95% of encounters were with patients covered by either private insurance (n = 761, 41.7%) or Medicare/Medicare Advantage (n = 972, 53.3%). Of the 1695 encounters with patients whose seropositivity status was documented in the EHR, 74.3% were seropositive. DMARD use was noted in 98.4% of outpatient RA encounters, and the mean number of DMARDs per encounter was 1.7. RAPID-3 scores varied widely among encounters, with 16.9% of patients reporting remission (RAPID-3 = 0-1.0), 13.5% reporting LDA (RAPID-3 = 1.1-2.0), 28.4% reporting MDA (RAPID-3 = 2.1-4.0), and 41.2% reporting HDA (RAPID-3 > 4.0). A comorbid diagnosis of noninflammatory arthritis or osteoarthritis was noted in 61.2% and 63.5% of encounters, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Patient demographics and RA characteristics measured at the level of the outpatient encounter.

During the study period, 83.3% of encounters were conducted in person, and 16.7% of encounters were conducted by telehealth (Table 2). On average, providers submitted 72.9 EASY scores for outpatient RA encounters during the study period, and the mean number of encounters that received an EASY score per patient was 1.6. Of the 1823 outpatient RA encounters that received an EASY score during the study period, rheumatology providers deemed telehealth to be appropriate (EASY = 1 or 3) for 32.2% of encounters and preferred in-person visits (EASY = 2) for 67.8% of encounters. One-quarter of in-person encounters were scored by providers as telehealth appropriate (25.6%). Conversely, approximately one-third (34.7%) of telehealth encounters were scored by providers as in-person preferred. This discordance between encounter type and encounter appropriateness was more pronounced for phone (45% in-person preferred) than video (27.3% in-person preferred) encounters.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Encounter characteristics of outpatient rheumatology visits during the study period.

In our final multivariate model, the variables of interest that were significantly associated with increased telehealth appropriateness were increased patient age (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09), telehealth as the current encounter modality (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.95-2.64), and provider preference for telehealth from prior encounters (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.21-1.31; Table 3). The variables of interest that were significantly associated with decreased telehealth appropriateness were MDA (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96) and HDA (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46-0.70), as measured by the RAPID-3 score, and if the previous encounter was conducted by telehealth (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73-0.95). Most demographic variables (sex, race, ethnicity, insurance type, service area) and RA clinical characteristics (seropositive status, total number of DMARDs, type of DMARD, comorbid noninflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia) did not have any association with telehealth appropriateness in the multivariate model. Time since previous visit, average provider modality for prior encounters, and whether the previous encounter was with a different provider than the current encounter similarly did not have any association with telehealth appropriateness.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

The association between demographic-, RA-, encounter-, and provider-related factors and telehealth appropriateness.

DISCUSSION

In this prospective cohort study of outpatient RA encounters, we found provider preference for telehealth, telehealth as the current encounter modality when the EASY score was assigned, and, to a lesser extent, increasing patient age were associated with increased telehealth appropriateness in outpatient RA encounters. MDA and HDA were the only clinical factors associated with decreased telehealth appropriateness in our multivariate model. Additionally, providers preferred to see patients in person if the previous encounter had been conducted by telehealth.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively evaluate factors associated with telehealth appropriateness in outpatient RA encounters. Based on our observations, it appears that RA disease activity is the most relevant clinical factor associated with telehealth appropriateness, and we found that higher RA disease activity scores were associated with lower telehealth appropriateness for outpatient RA encounters. This observation is supported by previous telehealth studies in RA that have demonstrated telehealth care is safe and effective for patients with RA with LDA or stable disease activity.4-6 Not surprisingly, the use of telehealth in individuals with MDA or HDA levels has not been well studied.

At the provider and encounter levels, providers seemed to prefer in-person encounters for patients with RA whose prior encounter had been conducted by telehealth. Providers also generally assigned higher telehealth appropriateness scores to an outpatient RA encounter if the encounter was conducted by a telehealth modality, and they appeared to prefer video visits over telephone visits. Although these behaviors were observed in most providers, it is important to note that provider preference (ie, averaged provider EASY score from prior encounters) was one of the variables most strongly associated with increased telehealth appropriateness in our study.

In our previous work with the EASY scoring system across all rheumatic diseases, we observed significant variability in the EASY score distribution between different rheumatology providers.10,11 The literature suggests rheumatology providers generally view telehealth favorably, particularly when conducting video encounters with known patients, although providers also recognize the limitations of being unable to perform an in-person physical exam, such as the inability to detect subtle synovitis or screen for extraarticular manifestations of RA.7,8,15,16 Previous studies have shown that providers who see more patients by telehealth are more comfortable using telehealth and are more likely to offer telehealth in the future.16,17 These observations emphasize the importance of accounting for provider preference when developing future predictive models to guide appropriate telehealth triage.

The findings presented are subject to several limitations. The encounters described above were all conducted at a single academic health system, and the EASY scoring system used to rate telehealth appropriateness was developed and piloted in the same health system. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the EASY score in other settings to increase generalizability, particularly given the observed differences in provider preference for telehealth. As this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is also difficult to separate provider perceptions of telehealth appropriateness from the influence of COVID-19, although we attempted to account for this in our EASY prompt by stating “irrespective of the pandemic.” This study was also conducted while insurers were offering equivalent reimbursement for video and in-person encounters, which may have affected provider preferences and could change over time. Patient perspectives of telehealth appropriateness were not included in this study; future studies are needed to further elucidate factors associated with patient preferences for visit type and to compare these patient preferences with provider perceptions of telehealth appropriateness. Future EASY studies may also benefit from balancing the number of telehealth and in-person encounters as much as possible.

In conclusion, our study of outpatient RA encounters demonstrated that provider preference, telehealth as the current encounter modality when the EASY score was assigned, and, to a lesser extent, increasing patient age were associated with increased telehealth appropriateness. MDA and HDA were associated with decreased telehealth appropriateness in outpatient RA encounters, and providers preferred to see patients in-person if the previous encounter had been conducted by telehealth. As our rheumatology telehealth practice moves beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, we plan to use these observations and data from future EASY score studies to develop predictive clinical tools that will facilitate shared decision-making conversations between patients and providers regarding the most appropriate RA follow-up encounter modality.

Footnotes

  • This project was funded by the Independent Quality Improvement Grant to Study Telehealth in Rheumatology (grant no. 2933673), sponsored by Pfizer. Protected research time for the first author (IDS) was provided by a Career Development Award from the Duke Center for Research to Advance Healthcare Equity (grant no. 3U54MD012530-05S2).

  • DLL has received research grants from Pfizer and the American College of Rheumatology for unrelated studies. TMC has received research grants from Pfizer and Merck for unrelated studies; serves as a consultant for Regenxbio; and has received payment for presentations from the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. MEBC has received research grants from Exagen, GSK, Immunovant, and UCB for unrelated studies, and serves as a consultant for GSK and UCB. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

  • Accepted for publication April 26, 2024.
  • Copyright © 2024 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. George MD,
    2. Danila MI,
    3. Watrous D, et al.
    Disruptions in rheumatology care and the rise of telehealth in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a community practice-based network. Arthritis Care Res 2021;73:1153-61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.
    1. Maheswaranathan M,
    2. Chu P,
    3. Johannemann A,
    4. Criscione-Schreiber L,
    5. Clowse M,
    6. Leverenz DL.
    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and telemedicine implementation on practice patterns and electronic health record utilization in an academic rheumatology practice. J Clin Rheumatol 2022;28:e612-5.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ziadé N,
    2. Hmamouchi I,
    3. El Kibbi L, et al.
    The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatology practice: a cross-sectional multinational study. Clin Rheumatol 2020;39:3205-13.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. 4.↵
    1. Chew LC,
    2. Xin X,
    3. Yang H,
    4. Thumboo J.
    An evaluation of the Virtual Monitoring Clinic, a novel nurse-led service for monitoring patients with stable rheumatoid arthritis. Int J Rheum Dis 2019;22:619-25.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.
    1. de Thurah A,
    2. Stengaard-Pedersen K,
    3. Axelsen M, et al.
    Tele-health followup strategy for tight control of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res 2018;70:353-60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ferucci ED,
    2. Day GM,
    3. Choromanski TL,
    4. Freeman SL.
    Outcomes and quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis with or without video telemedicine follow-up visits. Arthritis Care Res 2022;74:484-92.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bos WH,
    2. van Tubergen A,
    3. Vonkeman HE.
    Telemedicine for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic; a positive experience in the Netherlands. Rheumatol Int 2021;41:565-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Matsumoto RA,
    2. Barton JL.
    Telerheumatology: before, during, and after a global pandemic. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2021;33:262-9.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Antony A,
    2. Connelly K,
    3. De Silva T, et al.
    Perspectives of patients with rheumatic diseases in the early phase of COVID-19. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:1189-95.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Smith ID,
    2. Coles TM,
    3. Howe C, et al.
    Telehealth made EASY: understanding provider perceptions of telehealth appropriateness in outpatient rheumatology encounters. ACR Open Rheumatol 2022;4:845-52.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Solomon M,
    2. Henao R,
    3. Economau-Zavlanos N, et al.
    Encounter Appropriateness Score for You model: development and pilot implementation of a predictive model to identify visits appropriate for telehealth in rheumatology. Arthritis Care Res 2024;76:63-71.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Thomas SL,
    2. Edwards CJ,
    3. Smeeth L,
    4. Cooper C,
    5. Hall AJ.
    How accurate are diagnoses for rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the general practice research database? Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:1314-21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Pincus T,
    2. Swearingen C,
    3. Bergman M,
    4. Yazici Y.
    RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a rheumatoid arthritis index without formal joint counts for routine care: proposed severity categories compared to disease activity score and clinical disease activity index categories. J Rheumatol 2008;35:2136-47.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ballinger GA.
    Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organ Res Methods 2004;7:127-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Richards JS,
    3. Chang E,
    4. Joseph A,
    5. Ng B.
    Management of rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national Veterans Affairs survey of rheumatologists. Arthritis Care Res 2021;73:998-1003.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Singh JA,
    2. Richards JS,
    3. Chang E,
    4. Joseph AM,
    5. Ng B.
    Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic by resilient rheumatology providers: a national Veterans Affairs follow-up survey. J Rheumatol 2022;49:424-31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Ferucci ED,
    2. Holck P,
    3. Day GM,
    4. Choromanski TL,
    5. Freeman SL.
    Factors associated with use of telemedicine for follow-up of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2020;72:1404-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed

ONLINE SUPPLEMENT

Supplementary material accompanies the online version of this article.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 51, Issue 8
1 Aug 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluating Factors Associated With Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatoid Arthritis Encounters Using the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY)
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Evaluating Factors Associated With Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatoid Arthritis Encounters Using the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY)
Isaac D. Smith, Mary J. Solomon, Hillary Mulder, Catherine Sims, Theresa M. Coles, Robert Overton, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos, Rong Zhao, Bhargav Adagarla, Jayanth Doss, Ricardo Henao, Megan E.B. Clowse, Hayden Bosworth, David L. Leverenz
The Journal of Rheumatology Aug 2024, 51 (8) 759-764; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.2024-0014

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Evaluating Factors Associated With Telehealth Appropriateness in Outpatient Rheumatoid Arthritis Encounters Using the Encounter Appropriateness Score for You (EASY)
Isaac D. Smith, Mary J. Solomon, Hillary Mulder, Catherine Sims, Theresa M. Coles, Robert Overton, Nicoleta Economou-Zavlanos, Rong Zhao, Bhargav Adagarla, Jayanth Doss, Ricardo Henao, Megan E.B. Clowse, Hayden Bosworth, David L. Leverenz
The Journal of Rheumatology Aug 2024, 51 (8) 759-764; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.2024-0014
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
    • ONLINE SUPPLEMENT
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

access to health care
RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS
TELEMEDICINE

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Stressful Life Events in the Year Prior to Diagnosis and Associations With Rheumatoid Arthritis Characteristics at Presentation and 1 Year Later
  • Neutrophil Extracellular Trap Formation–Derived Peptidylarginine Deiminases in the Citrullination of Oral Bacteria to Promote Inflammation in Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • Unilateral Versus Bilateral Ultrasound of the Hands in Patients With Clinically Suspect Arthralgia: What Is the Difference? A Longitudinal Study
Show more Rheumatoid Arthritis

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • access to health care
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • TELEMEDICINE

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire