"It's second best": A mixed-methods evaluation of the experiences and attitudes of people with musculoskeletal pain towards physiotherapist delivered telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic.
C J Barton, A M Ezzat, M Merolli and 4 others
PMID 35074694WHAT IT FOUND
People with musculoskeletal pain viewed telehealth as valuable but second-best to in-person care.
They valued convenience and safety but struggled with physical assessment and lacking hands-on treatment. Many preferred a hybrid model where video supports follow-up rather than replacing clinic visits.
Key findings
01Participants generally perceived telehealth as inferior to in-person care, describing it as 'second best', though valuable when face-to-face options were unavailable.
02The lack of physical contact was a major challenge, preventing accurate diagnosis and the delivery of hands-on treatments like manual therapy.
03Video calls and supplementary resources like exercise videos were key enablers that helped overcome some limitations of remote care.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was conducted during a pandemic lockdown, so participants may have been more accepting of telehealth than in normal circumstances. Most participants lived in metropolitan areas and had the technology and literacy to access telehealth, potentially excluding views of those with greater barriers. The sample was recruited from private physiotherapy practices, so results may not apply to public healthcare settings. Participants had limited exposure to telehealth, with a median of only two sessions, which may affect the depth of their experience.
Declared interests
The authors declared no competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 'mixed' findings as evidence that telehealth is ineffective. The study reports patient perceptions and experiences, not clinical outcomes compared to in-person care. The 'negative' aspects relate to the limitations of remote assessment, not the quality of the exercise prescription itself.