Cargando…

Using Text Messaging in Long-Term Arthroplasty Follow-Up: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and mobile technology have the potential to change the way patients are monitored following joint replacement surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of text messaging to record PROMs in long-term follow-up of h...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blocker, Oliver, Bullock, Alison, Morgan-Jones, Rhidian, Ghandour, Adel, Richardson, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5449649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28512080
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/resprot.6047
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and mobile technology have the potential to change the way patients are monitored following joint replacement surgery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of text messaging to record PROMs in long-term follow-up of hip and knee arthroplasty. Our participants were 17 patients 2-years-plus post hip or knee arthroplasty attending clinic with a mobile telephone number on record. METHODS: A simple PROM (Oswestry Very Short Form) was texted to the patient. Responses were compared to clinical, radiographic, and existing PROM findings. Patients were interviewed to discover their opinions on this use of texting. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients engaged with the text messaging. Reasons for not engaging included wrong numbers, physical barriers, and lack of understanding. A total of 8 patients attending clinic allowed comparison of text messaging with clinical findings. The average age was 70 years. A total of 4 patient text messaging responses matched clinical and radiographic findings; 3 also matched PROM scores collected in clinic. The 3 patients with mixed responses had abnormal clinical, radiographic, or PROM findings. One patient’s text responses conflicted with clinical outcome. Analysis of patients’ views showed a generally positive opinion: patients were happy to communicate with surgeons by text. Practical problems, PROM limitations, and trustworthiness of texting were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging with changing technology creates challenges for patients and health care professionals. Despite this, our results suggest text messaging is a promising way to communicate with arthroplasty patients. Earlier integration of text communication in the patient pathway may be important and needs further research.