BACKGROUND: The expanding role of technology to augment diabetes care and management highlights the need for clinicians to learn about these new tools. As these tools continue to evolve and enhance improved outcomes, it is imperative that clinicians consider the role of telemonitoring, or remote monitoring, in patient care. This article describes a successful telemonitoring project in Utah. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a nonrandomized prospective observational preintervention-postintervention study, using a convenience sample. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes and/or hypertension from four rural and two urban primary care clinics and one urban stroke center participated in a telemonitoring program. The primary clinical outcome measures were changes in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and blood pressure. Other outcomes included fasting lipids, weight, patient engagement, diabetes knowledge, hypertension knowledge, medication adherence, and patient perceptions of the usefulness of the telemonitoring program. RESULTS: Mean A1C decreased from 9.73% at baseline to 7.81% at the end of the program (P<0.0001). Systolic blood pressure also declined significantly, from 130.7 mm Hg at baseline to 122.9 mm Hg at the end (P=0.0001). Low-density lipoprotein content decreased significantly, from 103.9 mg/dL at baseline to 93.7 mg/dL at the end (P=0.0263). Other clinical parameters improved nonsignificantly. Knowledge of diabetes and hypertension increased significantly (P<0.001 for both). Patient engagement and medication adherence also improved, but not significantly. Per questionnaires at study end, patients felt the telemonitoring program was useful. CONCLUSIONS: Telemonitoring improved clinical outcomes and may be a useful tool to help enhance disease management and care of patients with diabetes and/or hypertension.
BACKGROUND: The expanding role of technology to augment diabetes care and management highlights the need for clinicians to learn about these new tools. As these tools continue to evolve and enhance improved outcomes, it is imperative that clinicians consider the role of telemonitoring, or remote monitoring, in patient care. This article describes a successful telemonitoring project in Utah. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a nonrandomized prospective observational preintervention-postintervention study, using a convenience sample. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes and/or hypertension from four rural and two urban primary care clinics and one urban stroke center participated in a telemonitoring program. The primary clinical outcome measures were changes in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and blood pressure. Other outcomes included fasting lipids, weight, patient engagement, diabetes knowledge, hypertension knowledge, medication adherence, and patient perceptions of the usefulness of the telemonitoring program. RESULTS: Mean A1C decreased from 9.73% at baseline to 7.81% at the end of the program (P<0.0001). Systolic blood pressure also declined significantly, from 130.7 mm Hg at baseline to 122.9 mm Hg at the end (P=0.0001). Low-density lipoprotein content decreased significantly, from 103.9 mg/dL at baseline to 93.7 mg/dL at the end (P=0.0263). Other clinical parameters improved nonsignificantly. Knowledge of diabetes and hypertension increased significantly (P<0.001 for both). Patient engagement and medication adherence also improved, but not significantly. Per questionnaires at study end, patients felt the telemonitoring program was useful. CONCLUSIONS: Telemonitoring improved clinical outcomes and may be a useful tool to help enhance disease management and care of patients with diabetes and/or hypertension.
Authors: Richard J McManus; Jonathan Mant; Emma P Bray; Roger Holder; Miren I Jones; Sheila Greenfield; Billingsley Kaambwa; Miriam Banting; Stirling Bryan; Paul Little; Bryan Williams; F D Richard Hobbs Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bonnie J Wakefield; John E Holman; Annette Ray; Melody Scherubel; Margaret R Adams; Stephen L Hillis; Gary E Rosenthal Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Steven Shea; Ruth S Weinstock; Jeanne A Teresi; Walter Palmas; Justin Starren; James J Cimino; Albert M Lai; Lesley Field; Philip C Morin; Robin Goland; Roberto E Izquierdo; Susana Ebner; Stephanie Silver; Eva Petkova; Jian Kong; Joseph P Eimicke Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Roslyn A Stone; R Harsha Rao; Mary Ann Sevick; Chunrong Cheng; Linda J Hough; David S Macpherson; Carol M Franko; Rebecca A Anglin; D Scott Obrosky; Frederick R Derubertis Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Alexandra J Greenberg; Danielle Haney; Kelly D Blake; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Michelle M Alvarado; Hye-Chung Kum; Karla Gonzalez Coronado; Margaret J Foster; Pearl Ortega; Mark A Lawley Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Laura Shane-McWhorter; Carrie McAdam-Marx; Leslie Lenert; Marta Petersen; Sarah Woolsey; Jeffrey M Coursey; Thomas C Whittaker; Christian Hyer; Deb LaMarche; Patricia Carroll; Libbey Chuy Journal: Diabetes Spectr Date: 2016-05
Authors: Van C Willis; Kelly Jean Thomas Craig; Yalda Jabbarpour; Elisabeth L Scheufele; Yull E Arriaga; Monica Ajinkya; Kyu B Rhee; Andrew Bazemore Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-01-21