Acceptability, Feasibility, and Cost of Telemedicine for Nonacute Headaches: A Randomized Study Comparing Video and Traditional Consultations

Kai Ivar Müller, Karl Bjørnar Alstadhaug, Svein Ivar Bekkelund, Kai Ivar Müller, Karl Bjørnar Alstadhaug, Svein Ivar Bekkelund

Abstract

Background: The feasibility of telemedicine in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches, such as primary headaches (migraine and tension-type) and medication-overuse headaches has not been previously investigated. By eliminating the need of travel to specialists, telemedicine may offer significant time and money savings.

Objectives: Our objective was to estimate the acceptance of telemedicine and investigate the feasibility and cost savings of telemedicine consultations in diagnosing and treating nonacute headaches.

Methods: From September 2012 to March 2015, nonacute headache patients from Northern Norway who were referred to neurologists through an electronic application system were consecutively screened and randomized to participate in either telemedicine or traditional specialist visits. All patients were consulted by two neurologists at the neurological department in Tromsø University Hospital. Feasibility outcomes were compared between telemedicine and traditional groups. Baseline characteristics and costs were then compared between rural and urban patients. Travel costs were calculated by using the probabilistic method of the Norwegian traveling agency: the cheapest means of public transport for each study participant. Loss of pay was calculated based on the Norwegian full-time employee's average salary: < 3.5 hours=a half day's salary, > 3.5 hours spent on travel and consultation=one day's salary. Distance and time spent on travel were estimated by using Google Maps.

Results: Of 557 headache patients screened, 479 were found eligible and 402 accepted telemedicine participation (83.9%, 402/479) and were included in the final analyses. Of these, 202 received traditional specialist consultations and 200 received telemedicine. All patients in the telemedicine group were satisfied with the video quality, and 198 (99%, 198/200) were satisfied with the sound quality. The baseline characteristics as well as headache diagnostics and follow-up appointments, and the investigation, advice, and prescription practices were not statistically different between the two randomized groups. In addition, telemedicine consultations were shorter than traditional visits (38.8 vs 43.7 min, P<.001). The travel cost per rural individual (292/402, 73%) was €249, and estimated lost income was €234 per visit. The travel cost in the urban area (110/402, 27%) was €6, and estimated lost income was €117 per visit. The median traveling distance for rural patients was 526 km (range 1892 km), and the median traveling time was 7.8 hours (range 27.3 hours). Rural patients had a longer waiting time than urban patients (64 vs 47 days, P=.001), and fewer women were referred from rural areas (P=.04). Rural women reported higher pain scores than urban women (P=.005).

Conclusion: Our study shows that telemedicine is an accepted, feasible, time-saving, and cost-saving alternative to traditional specialist consultations for nonacute headaches.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02270177; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02270177 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6hmoHGo9Q).

Keywords: burden; consultation; cost; feasibility; headache; management; randomization; rural; telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of participants through the study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Overview of the most prominent headaches, n=402.

References

    1. Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Schroll M, Olesen J. Epidemiology of headache in a general population--a prevalence study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1147–57.
    1. Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015 Aug 22;386(9995):743–800. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60692-4.
    1. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) [2016-01-22]. .
    1. Bekkelund SI, Albretsen C. Evaluation of referrals from general practice to a neurological department. Fam Pract. 2002 Jun;19(3):297–9.
    1. Olesen J, Gustavsson A, Svensson M, Wittchen H, Jönsson B, group Cs The economic cost of brain disorders in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2012 Jan;19(1):155–62. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03590.x.
    1. Frishberg B, Rosenberg J, Matchar D, McCrory D, Pietrzak M, Rozen T, Silberstein SD. Practice Guidelines. Minneapolis: American Academy of Neurology; 2000. [2016-05-18]. Evidence-based guidelines in the primary care setting: neuroimaging in patients with nonacute headache .
    1. Headache Classification Subcommittee of the International Headache Society The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition. Cephalalgia. 2004;24 Suppl 1:9–160.
    1. . The Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services; 2001. Feb 08, [2016-02-12]. I-12/2001 Telemedisin og ansvarsforhold
    1. Tassorelli C, Farm I, Kettinen H, de la Torre ER, Stretenovic S, Thomas W, Vriezen P, Van OL, Krause D, Craven A. Access to care--an unmet need in headache management? J Headache Pain. 2014;15:20. doi: 10.1186/1129-2377-15-20.
    1. Wechsler LR. Advantages and limitations of teleneurology. JAMA Neurol. 2015 Mar;72(3):349–54. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.3844.
    1. Di CA, Morales-Medina JC, Palmieri B, Iannitti T. Narrative review of telemedicine consultation in medical practice. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:65–75. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S61617.
    1. Pereira-Monteiro J, Wysocka-Bakowska M, Katsarava Z, Antonaci F, European HF. Guidelines for telematic second opinion consultation on headaches in Europe: on behalf of the European Headache Federation (EHF) J Headache Pain. 2010 Aug;11(4):345–8.
    1. Chaves-Carballo E. Diagnosis of childhood migraine by compressed interactive video. Kans Med. 1992 Dec;93(12):353.
    1. Craig J, Chua R, Wootton R, Patterson V. A pilot study of telemedicine for new neurological outpatient referrals. J Telemed Telecare. 2000;6(4):225–8.
    1. Chua R, Craig J, Wootton R, Patterson V. Randomised controlled trial of telemedicine for new neurological outpatient referrals. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001 Jul;71(1):63–6.
    1. Flodgren G, Rachas A, Farmer AJ, Inzitari M, Shepperd S. Interactive telemedicine: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 07;9:CD002098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002098.pub2.
    1. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar W, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van RL, Raat H, Nijsten Tamar EC, Pasmans Suzanne GMA. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e110. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2790.
    1. Bergmo TS. How to Measure Costs and Benefits of eHealth Interventions: An Overview of Methods and Frameworks. J Med Internet Res. 2015 Nov;17(11):e254. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4521.
    1. Statistics Norway. Statistics Norway; 2015. Feb 19, [2015-10-02]. Statistics Norway Population, 1 January 2015 .
    1. Lundqvist C, Benth JS, Grande RB, Aaseth K, Russell MB. A vertical VAS is a valid instrument for monitoring headache pain intensity. Cephalalgia. 2009 Oct;29(10):1034–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2008.01833.x.
    1. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, Ware JE, Garber WH, Batenhorst A, Cady R, Dahlöf C G H. Dowson A, Tepper S. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003 Dec;12(8):963–74.
    1. Pasientreiser. [2015-10-02].
    1. Statistics Norway home page. 2015. [2015-10-02]. Statistics Norway .
    1. World Medical Association. World Medical Association; 2008. [2016-05-18]. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects .
    1. Poder TG, Bellemare CA, Bédard SK, Lemieux R. Social acceptance and population confidence in telehealth in Quebec. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:72. doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0727-1.
    1. Cottrell C, Drew J, Gibson J, Holroyd K, O'Donnell F. Feasibility assessment of telephone-administered behavioral treatment for adolescent migraine. Headache. 2007 Oct;47(9):1293–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00804.x.
    1. Davis LE, Coleman J, Harnar J, King MK. Teleneurology: successful delivery of chronic neurologic care to 354 patients living remotely in a rural state. Telemed J E Health. 2014 May;20(5):473–7. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0217.
    1. Trautmann E, Kröner-Herwig B. A randomized controlled trial of Internet-based self-help training for recurrent headache in childhood and adolescence. Behav Res Ther. 2010 Jan;48(1):28–37. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.004.
    1. Wang Y, Hunt K, Nazareth I, Freemantle N, Petersen I. Do men consult less than women? An analysis of routinely collected UK general practice data. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8):e003320. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003320.
    1. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Steiner TJ, Bigal ME, Kolodner K, Liberman JN, Stewart WF. Patterns of health care utilization for migraine in England and in the United States. Neurology. 2003 Feb 11;60(3):441–8.
    1. Klapper JA, Klapper A, Voss T. The misdiagnosis of cluster headache: a nonclinic, population-based, Internet survey. Headache. 2000 Oct;40(9):730–5.
    1. Rossi P, Faroni J, Tassorelli C, Nappi G. Diagnostic delay and suboptimal management in a referral population with hemicrania continua. Headache. 2009 Feb;49(2):227–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2008.01260.x.
    1. de la Torre-Díez I, López-Coronado M, Vaca C, Aguado JS, de Castro C. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness studies of telemedicine, electronic, and mobile health systems in the literature: a systematic review. Telemed J E Health. 2015 Feb;21(2):81–5. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0053.
    1. Whitten PS, Mair FS, Haycox A, May CR, Williams TL, Hellmich S. Systematic review of cost effectiveness studies of telemedicine interventions. BMJ. 2002 Jun 15;324(7351):1434–7.
    1. Jacklin PB, Roberts JA, Wallace P, Haines A, Harrison R, Barber JA, Thompson SG, Lewis L, Currell R, Parker S, Wainwright P, Virtual Outreach Project Group Virtual outreach: economic evaluation of joint teleconsultations for patients referred by their general practitioner for a specialist opinion. BMJ. 2003 Jul 12;327(7406):84. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7406.84.
    1. Chua R, Craig J, Wootton R, Patterson V. Cost implications of outpatient teleneurology. J Telemed Telecare. 2001;7 Suppl 1:62–4.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit