Rachael C Walker1, Allison Tong2, Kirsten Howard3, Suetonia C Palmer4. 1. Eastern Institute of Technology, Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. Electronic address: rwalker@eit.ac.nz. 2. Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. 3. Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Australia. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, 8140, New Zealand; Department of Nephrology, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of patients' beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic conditions across different healthcare contexts and populations. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL, Google Scholar, and reference lists of related studies through to July 2017. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse the findings of the primary studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings PARTICIPANTS: Adults with chronic diseases OUTCOMES: Patient beliefs, attitudes, expectations and experiences of remote monitoring RESULTS: We included 16 studies involving 307 participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and end stage kidney disease. The studies were conducted in 8 countries. We identified four themes: gaining knowledge and triggering actions (tracking and responding to change, prompting timely and accessible care, supporting self-management and shared decision-making); reassurance and security (safety in being alone, peace of mind); concern about additional burden (reluctance to learn something new, lack of trust in technology, avoiding additional out-of-pocket costs), and jeopardising interpersonal connections (fear of being lost in data, losing face to face contact). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic disease, remote monitoring increased their disease-specific knowledge, triggered earlier clinical assessment and treatment, improved self-management and shared decision-making. However, these potential benefits were balanced against concerns about losing interpersonal contact, and the additional personal responsibility of remote monitoring.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of patients' beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic conditions across different healthcare contexts and populations. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL, Google Scholar, and reference lists of related studies through to July 2017. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse the findings of the primary studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings PARTICIPANTS: Adults with chronic diseases OUTCOMES: Patient beliefs, attitudes, expectations and experiences of remote monitoring RESULTS: We included 16 studies involving 307 participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and end stage kidney disease. The studies were conducted in 8 countries. We identified four themes: gaining knowledge and triggering actions (tracking and responding to change, prompting timely and accessible care, supporting self-management and shared decision-making); reassurance and security (safety in being alone, peace of mind); concern about additional burden (reluctance to learn something new, lack of trust in technology, avoiding additional out-of-pocket costs), and jeopardising interpersonal connections (fear of being lost in data, losing face to face contact). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic disease, remote monitoring increased their disease-specific knowledge, triggered earlier clinical assessment and treatment, improved self-management and shared decision-making. However, these potential benefits were balanced against concerns about losing interpersonal contact, and the additional personal responsibility of remote monitoring.
Authors: Sarah Blower; Veronica Swallow; Camila Maturana; Simon Stones; Robert Phillips; Paul Dimitri; Zoe Marshman; Peter Knapp; Alexandra Dean; Steven Higgins; Ian Kellar; Penny Curtis; Nathaniel Mills; Jacqueline Martin-Kerry Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Bruno Pais; Philipp Buluschek; Guillaume DuPasquier; Tobias Nef; Narayan Schütz; Hugo Saner; Daniel Gatica-Perez; Valérie Santschi Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2020-10-02
Authors: Tucker Annis; Susan Pleasants; Gretchen Hultman; Elizabeth Lindemann; Joshua A Thompson; Stephanie Billecke; Sameer Badlani; Genevieve B Melton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael P Craven; Jacob A Andrews; Alexandra R Lang; Sara K Simblett; Stuart Bruce; Sarah Thorpe; Til Wykes; Richard Morriss; Chris Hollis Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2020-11-26