Lorraine S Evangelista1, Hassan Ghasemzadeh2, Jung-Ah Lee1, Ramin Fallahzadeh2, Majid Sarrafzadeh3, Debra K Moser4. 1. Program in Nursing Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA. 2. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA. 3. School of Computer Science & Director, Wireless Health Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether subgroups of patients may benefit from remote monitoring systems (RMS) and what user characteristics and contextual factors determine effective use of RMS in patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine whether certain user characteristics (i.e. personal and clinical variables) predict use of RMS using advanced machine learning software algorithms in patients with HF. METHODS: This pilot study was a single-arm experimental study with a pre- (baseline) and post- (3 months) design; data from the baseline measures were used for the current data analyses. Sixteen patients provided consent; only 7 patients (mean age 65.8 ± 6.1, range 58-83) accessed the RMS and transmitted daily data (e.g. weight, blood pressure) as instructed during the 12 week study duration. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of users and non-users were comparable for a majority of factors. However, users were more likely to have no HF specialty based care or an automatic internal cardioverter defibrillator. The precision accuracy of decision tree, multilayer perceptron (MLP) and k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) classifiers for predicting access to RMS was 87.5%, 90.3%, and 94.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data show that a small set of baseline attributes is sufficient to predict subgroups of patients who had a higher likelihood of using RMS. While our findings shed light on potential end-users more likely to benefit from RMS-based interventions, additional research in a larger sample is warranted to explicate the impact of user characteristics on actual use of these technologies.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether subgroups of patients may benefit from remote monitoring systems (RMS) and what user characteristics and contextual factors determine effective use of RMS in patients with heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine whether certain user characteristics (i.e. personal and clinical variables) predict use of RMS using advanced machine learning software algorithms in patients with HF. METHODS: This pilot study was a single-arm experimental study with a pre- (baseline) and post- (3 months) design; data from the baseline measures were used for the current data analyses. Sixteen patients provided consent; only 7 patients (mean age 65.8 ± 6.1, range 58-83) accessed the RMS and transmitted daily data (e.g. weight, blood pressure) as instructed during the 12 week study duration. RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of users and non-users were comparable for a majority of factors. However, users were more likely to have no HF specialty based care or an automatic internal cardioverter defibrillator. The precision accuracy of decision tree, multilayer perceptron (MLP) and k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) classifiers for predicting access to RMS was 87.5%, 90.3%, and 94.5% respectively. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary data show that a small set of baseline attributes is sufficient to predict subgroups of patients who had a higher likelihood of using RMS. While our findings shed light on potential end-users more likely to benefit from RMS-based interventions, additional research in a larger sample is warranted to explicate the impact of user characteristics on actual use of these technologies.
Authors: Barbara Riegel; Debra K Moser; Stefan D Anker; Lawrence J Appel; Sandra B Dunbar; Kathleen L Grady; Michelle Z Gurvitz; Edward P Havranek; Christopher S Lee; Joann Lindenfeld; Pamela N Peterson; Susan J Pressler; Douglas D Schocken; David J Whellan Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: George H Crossley; Andrew Boyle; Holly Vitense; Yanping Chang; R Hardwin Mead Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David W Baker; Steven M Asch; Joan W Keesey; Julie A Brown; Kitty S Chan; Geoffrey Joyce; Emmett B Keeler Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Bonnie J Wakefield; John E Holman; Annette Ray; Melody Scherubel; Trudy L Burns; Michael G Kienzle; Gary E Rosenthal Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2009 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Francine Schneider; Liesbeth van Osch; Daniela N Schulz; Stef Pj Kremers; Hein de Vries Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 5.428