Evidence mapPaperPMID 41576299Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026

Acceptability of Telehealth as the Default Modality for Multiple Sclerosis Care in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Study.

Sintieh Nchinda Ngek Ekongefeyin, Paola Daniore, Vasileios Nittas, Stefania Iaquinto, Enriqueta Vallejo-Yagüe, Christian P Kamm, Pasquale Calabrese, Claudia Baum, Claudio Gobbi, Chiara Zecca and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sintieh Nchinda Ngek EkongefeyinInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Universitatstrasse 84, Zurich, 8006, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4623-5337
Paola DanioreCenter for Digital Trust, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3319-1125
Vasileios NittasEpidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6685-8275
Stefania IaquintoEpidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5808-9026
Enriqueta Vallejo-YagüeEpidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5911-2037
Christian P KammNeurocenter, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3906-0161
Pasquale CalabreseNeuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology Unit, Division of Cognitive and Molecular Neuroscience, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3347-5187
Claudia BaumRehaklinik Zihlschlacht AG, Neurological Rehabilitation Center, Part of the VAMED Group, Zihlschlacht, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-0656-4854
Claudio GobbiDepartment of Neurology, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7554-0664
Chiara ZeccaDepartment of Neurology, Neurocenter of Southern Switzerland, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, EOC, Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9990-3431
Andrew ChanDepartment of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7284-6767
Milo PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4721-1879
Viktor von WylInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care, University of Zurich, Universitatstrasse 84, Zurich, 8006, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8754-9797

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Telehealth can improve access to care for people living with multiple sclerosis (MS), but information on its acceptance is limited in Switzerland. Objective: This study aimed to determine the proportion of people living with MS willing to accept telehealth as a new default and the factors associated with their acceptance. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using survey data from the Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Registry. We defined "telehealth as a default" as a health care model where remote consultations (telephone and/or video calls) are the primary mode of interaction between patients and their physicians, with in-person visits based on clinical necessity. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between telehealth acceptance and sociodemographic and health-related factors. Telehealth acceptance was described in relation to 3 survey variables that mirrored key constructs from the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework. The variables were digital communication preferences, internet use for health provider searches, and experience with telemedicine. Results: Among 427 respondents, 15.5% (66/427) reported a willingness to accept telehealth as their default. In this group, only 21.2% (14/66) had experience using telemedicine. A descriptive analysis of our 3 NASSS-derived key constructs showed that among the 78.5% (335/427) respondents who generally agreed to digital access to health data, only 17.0% (57/335) accepted telehealth as a default. Notably, 30.7% (129/427) of participants stated a wish for support for using devices or the internet. Among those 129 individuals, 17.1% (22/129) were willing to accept telehealth as a default. Of the 89 people with prior telehealth experience, 15.7% (14/89) were willing to accept telehealth. In multivariable analysis, digital communication with health care providers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 14.56, 95% CI 6.18-39.04; P<.001), current internet use for health care provider search (aOR 7.78, 95% CI 1.34-45.32; P=.021), and a secondary progressive MS diagnosis (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.72; P=.021) were independently associated with accepting telehealth as a default. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a low acceptance of telehealth as a default among people living with MS in Switzerland. While our 3 postulated NASSS-derived key constructs were not associated with telehealth acceptance, we noted additional behavioral factors, including previous digital communication with health care providers and using the internet to search for health care provider information, which were associated with telehealth acceptance. Moreover, advanced disease states like secondary progressive MS were negatively associated with telehealth acceptance. Thus, telehealth as a default will be most acceptable in people living with MS who already use the internet for their health, and those with less severe disease. Future research should explore provider perspectives and evaluate long-term strategies for the acceptance of telehealth in MS care.

Indexed as

Multiple SclerosisPatient Acceptance of Health CareTelemedicineAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDigital HealthFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandacceptancechronic disease managementdigital healthmultiple sclerosispatient preferencestelehealth as a defaulttelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID41576299
PMCPMC12829899

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.