Comparison of telemedicine versus in-person visits for persons with multiple sclerosis: A randomized crossover study of feasibility, cost, and satisfaction

Abstract

BackgroundTelemedicine, the remote delivery of health care services, increases access to care for patients with mobility or geographic limitations. Virtual house calls (VHCs) are one type of telemedicine in which clinical visits are conducted remotely using an audio-visual connection with the patient at home. Use of VHCs is more established in other neurologic disorders but is only recently being formally evaluated in multiple sclerosis (MS). This randomized crossover study systematically assessed VHCs compared with in-clinic visits in persons with MS. MethodsRecruitment occurred in a university based MS clinic. Each subject completed one VHC and one in-clinic follow-up visit. A 1:1 randomization determined whether the VHC or in-clinic follow-up visit occurred first. Baseline surveys included demographics and MS history; post-visit surveys elicited subject responses regarding each visit type to assess feasibility, satisfaction, and cost differences. Outcomes were compared using t-tests for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for proportions. ResultsThirty-six participants completed both study visits and both post-visit surveys. VHC feasibility was demonstrated by a lack of statistically significant difference in the number of completed VHCs as compared with in-clinic visits. VHCs provided both cost and time savings to participants. The majority of participants reported that they would recommend telemedicine visits to others (97.1%) and rated it easy to connect via telemedicine (94.3%). In qualitative comments, participants expressed appreciation for VHCs due to convenience and similarity to in-clinic visits. ConclusionsVHCs were found to be feasible, cost-effective, and appealing to persons with MS and physicians, supporting their utility as a care delivery method for MS.