Factors associated with preference for in-person versus remote consultations in inflammatory bowel disease in the United Kingdom: secondary analysis of an online survey.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Keith Bodger, Frederick Taylor, Pratik Rai, Liz Dobson, Judith Bunn, Stephen Grainger, Fraser Cummings, Stuart Bloom, Nicholas Kennedy
{"title":"Factors associated with preference for in-person versus remote consultations in inflammatory bowel disease in the United Kingdom: secondary analysis of an online survey.","authors":"Keith Bodger, Frederick Taylor, Pratik Rai, Liz Dobson, Judith Bunn, Stephen Grainger, Fraser Cummings, Stuart Bloom, Nicholas Kennedy","doi":"10.1097/MEG.0000000000003220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic accelerated use of remote consultations as an alternative to in-person inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. However, factors associated with preference for remote or in-person follow-up remain poorly understood.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a retrospective analysis of an electronic follow-up survey completed by patients who had previously used an online IBD self-assessment tool during the early pandemic. Respondents with prior experience of remote consultations were included. Preference for future consultation modality was categorised as strong in-person preference ('Never by telephone or video'), strong remote preference ('Mostly by telephone or video'), or no preference. Survey domains included sociodemographics, comorbidities, home restriction, mobility, support, IBD-Control Questionnaire, patient reported outcome-2 symptoms, and satisfaction with IBD care. Associations with preference were examined using binary logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression across ordered preference categories from remote to no preference to in-person.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 5833 eligible respondents, 65% reported no preference, 25% a strong remote preference, and 10% a strong in-person preference. Stronger in-person preference was associated with older age, male gender, greater area deprivation, Asian ethnicity compared with White ethnicity, two or more comorbidities, Crohn's disease compared with ulcerative colitis, poorer IBD-specific patient-reported outcome measures, higher patient reported outcome-2 symptom scores, and dissatisfaction with care. Associations with strong remote preference were generally opposite, including younger age, lower deprivation, fewer comorbidities, ulcerative colitis, better patient reported outcome measure scores, and greater satisfaction; gender and ethnicity were not significant. Home restriction, mobility, and support were not significantly associated. Negative IBD-Control-8 responses increased progressively from remote preference to no preference to in-person preference.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sociodemographic and clinical factors influence consultation preferences in IBD. These findings may support equitable integration of remote care models.</p>","PeriodicalId":11999,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":"1290-1298"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13626586/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000003220","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic accelerated use of remote consultations as an alternative to in-person inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. However, factors associated with preference for remote or in-person follow-up remain poorly understood.

Methods: We undertook a retrospective analysis of an electronic follow-up survey completed by patients who had previously used an online IBD self-assessment tool during the early pandemic. Respondents with prior experience of remote consultations were included. Preference for future consultation modality was categorised as strong in-person preference ('Never by telephone or video'), strong remote preference ('Mostly by telephone or video'), or no preference. Survey domains included sociodemographics, comorbidities, home restriction, mobility, support, IBD-Control Questionnaire, patient reported outcome-2 symptoms, and satisfaction with IBD care. Associations with preference were examined using binary logistic regression and ordinal logistic regression across ordered preference categories from remote to no preference to in-person.

Results: Among 5833 eligible respondents, 65% reported no preference, 25% a strong remote preference, and 10% a strong in-person preference. Stronger in-person preference was associated with older age, male gender, greater area deprivation, Asian ethnicity compared with White ethnicity, two or more comorbidities, Crohn's disease compared with ulcerative colitis, poorer IBD-specific patient-reported outcome measures, higher patient reported outcome-2 symptom scores, and dissatisfaction with care. Associations with strong remote preference were generally opposite, including younger age, lower deprivation, fewer comorbidities, ulcerative colitis, better patient reported outcome measure scores, and greater satisfaction; gender and ethnicity were not significant. Home restriction, mobility, and support were not significantly associated. Negative IBD-Control-8 responses increased progressively from remote preference to no preference to in-person preference.

Conclusion: Sociodemographic and clinical factors influence consultation preferences in IBD. These findings may support equitable integration of remote care models.

英国炎症性肠病患者当面咨询与远程咨询的相关因素:一项在线调查的二次分析
2019年冠状病毒病大流行加速了远程会诊作为现场炎症性肠病(IBD)治疗的替代方案的使用。然而,与偏好远程或现场随访相关的因素仍然知之甚少。方法:我们对在早期大流行期间曾使用在线IBD自我评估工具的患者完成的电子随访调查进行了回顾性分析。包括具有远程咨询经验的应答者。对未来咨询方式的偏好被分类为强烈的面对面偏好(“从不通过电话或视频”),强烈的远程偏好(“主要通过电话或视频”),或者没有偏好。调查领域包括社会人口统计学、合并症、家庭限制、流动性、支持、IBD控制问卷、患者报告的结果-2症状和对IBD护理的满意度。使用二元逻辑回归和有序逻辑回归检查了从远程到无偏好到面对面的有序偏好类别与偏好的关联。结果:在5833名符合条件的受访者中,65%的人没有偏好,25%的人有强烈的远程偏好,10%的人有强烈的面对面偏好。更强的个人偏好与年龄、男性、更大的区域剥夺、亚洲种族与白人种族、两种或两种以上的合并症、克罗恩病与溃疡性结肠炎、ibd特异性患者报告的较差的结果测量、较高的患者报告的结果-2症状评分以及对护理的不满相关。与强烈的远程偏好的关联通常是相反的,包括年龄更小、剥夺程度更低、合并症、溃疡性结肠炎更少、患者报告的结果测量评分更高、满意度更高;性别和种族差异不显著。家庭限制、活动和支持没有显著相关。IBD-Control-8阴性反应逐渐增加,从远程偏好到无偏好再到面对面偏好。结论:社会人口学和临床因素影响IBD患者的会诊偏好。这些发现可能支持远程护理模式的公平整合。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
269
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology publishes papers reporting original clinical and scientific research which are of a high standard and which contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes three types of manuscript: in-depth reviews (by invitation only), full papers and case reports. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted on the understanding that the author has not previously submitted the paper to another journal or had the material published elsewhere. Authors are asked to disclose any affiliations, including financial, consultant, or institutional associations, that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书