Table 2.

Studies on the value of remote care in non-inflammatory RMDs (PICO 1)

Study	Study design	Disease	N°	Demographics*	Intervention	Control	Outcomes	Results†	RoB‡
Amorim et al 27	RCT	Chronic back pain	68	Age: 58 y Female: 50% FU duration: 6 mo	Physical activity plan, phone calls, activity Tracker, web application, additionally to information booklet	Information booklet	Efficacy (pain, physical activity)	No differences	RoB 2: some concern
Azma et al 28	RCT	Knee OA	54	Age: 56 y Female: 60% FU duration: 6 mo	Pamphlet with physical exercises, logbook for physical activity, monitoring phone calls	Office-based physical therapy for 6 weeks	Efficacy (pain; WOMAC)	No differences	RoB 2: high
Bennell et al 29	RCT	Knee OA	168	Age: 62 y Female: 16% FU duration: 12 mo	Six telephone coaching sessions (education, physical activity, exercises and adherence strategies)	Physiotherapy	Efficacy (pain; WOMAC; PASE) Adherence	Better adherence, function, pain and/or physical activity	RoB 2: some concern
Cuperus et al 30	RCT	OA	147	Age: 60 y Female: 85% FU duration: 52 w	Two F2F meetings (patient education, pain management, physical activity), four telephone calls (goal setting, progress reporting)	Six F2F meetings	Efficacy (SF-36 pain; physical activity, GSES)	Worse pain, better physical activity. No difference in QoL and self-efficacy	RoB 2: low
Cuperus et al 41	RCT	OA	147	Age: 60 y Female: 85% FU duration: 52 w	Two F2F meetings (patient education, pain management, physical activity), four telephone calls (goal setting, progress)	Six F2F meetings	Cost-effectiveness	Worse for quality-adjusted life years, lower total programme costs	RoB 2: high
Friesen et al 31	RCT	FM	60	Age: 48 y Female: 95% FU duration: 8 w	Eight-week long online programme on pain management	Waiting list	Efficacy (FIQR; BPI; HADS) User perception	Better for symptoms, depression, pain, fear of pain, generalised anxiety and physical health outcomes. No difference in patient satisfaction	RoB 2: low
Geragthy el al32	RCT	Low back pain	87	Age: 58 y Female: 61% FU duration: 3 mo	Six-week web application use for self-management, phone calls for support and encouragement, additionally to usual care	Usual care (consultations and/or physiotherapy and/or pain clinics)	Efficacy (RMDQ; pain) Adherence	Only descriptive analysis, no comparisons performed	RoB 2: some concern
Hinman et al 33	RCT	Knee OA	175	Age: 63 y Female: 55% FU duration: 12 mo	Telephone calls (physical activity), additionally to help line (OA education)	Help line (OA education: self-management, community resources, emotional support and treatment escalations)	Efficacy (pain; WOMAC) User perception	Better physical function, pain, physical activity and satisfaction outcomes	RoB 2: low
Kloek et al 40	RCT	Knee and/or hip OA	208	Age: 63 y Female: 68% FU duration: 12 mo	Five F2F physical therapy sessions, web application (behavioural graded activities, exercises, disease education, progress reports)	Physical therapy	Efficacy (TUG; accelerometer) User perception	No difference in physical function. Slightly less sedentary behaviour. No difference in user perception	RoB 2: high
Kloek et al 42	RCT	Knee and/or hip OA	208	Age: 63 y Female: 68% FU duration: 12 mo	Five F2F physical therapy sessions, web application (behavioural graded activities, exercises, disease education, progress reports)	Physical therapy	Cost-effectiveness	No differences	RoB 2: high
O’Brien et al 34	RCT	Overweight patients with knee OA	120	Age: 62 y Female: 62% FU duration: 26 w	Telephone-based weight management and healthy lifestyle service	Waiting list for orthopaedic consultation	Efficay (pain; WOMAC, FABQ, SF-12) Safety (adverse events)	No difference in pain or physical function. Better fear avoidance and QoL. No difference in adverse events	RoB 2: low
Odole and Ojo39	RCT	Knee OA	50	Age: 56 y Female: 49% FU duration: 6 w	Home exercises, telephone monitoring and coaching	Clinical-based therapy	Efficacy (WHOQo- Bref)	Better results on physical and psychological health according to WHO QoL	RoB 2: high
Rutledge et al 35	RCT	Low back pain	62	Age: 63 y Female: 9% FU duration: 8 w	Cognitive behavioural therapy via 1 F2F and 11 phone calls	Nurse delivered, telehealth supportive psychotherapy	Efficacy (pain, BDI-2) User perception	No differences in pain, depression or patient satisfaction outcomes	RoB 2: high
Shebib et al 36	RCT	Low back pain	177	Age: 43 y Female: 41% FU duration: 12 w	Web application (education articles, cognitive behavioural therapy, team discussions, activity/symptom tracking, coaching, exercises)	Receiving three digital education articles	Efficacy (pain)	Better pain, impact on daily life and disability outcomes	RoB 2: high
Skrepnik et al 37	RCT	Knee OA	211	Age: 63 y Female: 50% FU duration: 3 mo	Mobile application (motivational messages, goal setting) Additionally to F2F FU, wearable activity monitor and brochures on the benefit of walking	F2F FU, wearable activity tracker and brochures on the benefit of walking	Efficacy (pain; N° of steps) Safety (adverse events) User perception	More steps per day and less pain. No difference in adverse events. No difference between physician/patient satisfaction reported	RoB 2: high
Solomon et al 44	RCT	Osteoporosis	879	Age: 80 y Female: 93% FU duration: 12 mo	Telephone calls to improve medication adherence Additionally to mailed educational materials	Mailed educational materials	Adherence	No differences	RoB 2: high
Tso et al 43	RCT	Osteoporosis with fracture	6591	Age: 80 y Female: 100% FU duration: 4–5 mo	Telephone call (education on osteoporosis treatment) Additionally to at baseline educational material sent via mail/fax	At baseline educational material sent via mail/fax	Adherence	Better for receiving appropriate osteoporosis treatment	RoB2: high
Vallejo et al 38	RCT	FM	60	Age: 56 y Female: 100% FU duration: 12 mo	Web application (cognitive behavioural therapy, exercises), possibility to send questions to a therapist	Waiting list or cognitive behavioural therapy	Efficacy (FIQR, CPSS)	Worse impact on daily functioning and better self-efficacy compared with the normal cognitive behavioural group	RoB2: high
Nero et al 25	Cohort study	OA	25	Age: 62 y Female: 68% FU duration: 3 mo	Six-week long web programme (education, exercises, physiotherapy)	Twelve-week F2F programme (exercises, self-management techniques)	Efficacy (pain)	Numerically higher pain reduction, (higher baseline pain in intervention group)	ROBINS-I: low
Peterson et al 26	Cohort study	Low back pain	47	Age: 49 y Female: 70% FU duration: 1 day	Telerehabilitation assessment and assignment to treatment groups (mobilisation/manipulation, specific exercises, stabilisation)	F2F assignment to the treatment groups by another physical therapist	Efficacy (diagnostic accuracy)	No differences	ROBINS-I: moderate

*Age/Female ratio was calculated by the sum of age (mean or median) or female ratio (%) of intervention and control groups, respectively and divided by the number of groups, unless reported otherwise.

†Results are reported in respect to the comparison of the intervention with the control.

‡Overall RoB is reported according to the RoB 2 tool (low, some concern, high RoB) and the ROBINS-I tool (low, moderate, serious RoB).

BDI-2, Beck Depression Inventory 2; BPI, Brief Pain Inventory; CPSS, Chronic Pain Self-efficacy Scale; FABQ, fear avoidance beliefs questionnaire; F2F, face-to-face; FIQR, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire; FM, fibromyalgia; FU, follow-up; GSES, General Self-Efficacy Scale; HADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index; mo, months; OA, osteoarthritis; PASE, physical activity scale for the elderly; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomised controlled trial; RMDQ, Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire; RMDs, rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases; RoB, risk of bias; SF-12, Short Form 12; SF-36, Short Form 36; TUG, Timed Up & Go test; w, weeks; WHOQo-Bref, WHO Quality of life-Bref.