ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2017
Investigating User Identification in Remote Patient Monitoring Devices.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Digital Health Technology Adoption Among Older Adults With Chronic Diseases: Updated Systematic Review.JMIR aging · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to health technology adoption by older adults with chronic diseases: an integrative systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Perspectives and Experiences of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure Among Patients With Hypertension: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.American journal of hypertension · 2023Pooled it
- Remote blood pressure monitoring and behavioral intensification for stroke: A randomized controlled feasibility trial.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Review
- Patient Satisfaction With a Multisite, Multiregional Remote Patient Monitoring Program for Acute and Chronic Condition Management: Survey-Based Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Frameworks for Implementation, Uptake, and Use of Cardiometabolic Disease-Related Digital Health Interventions in Ethnic Minority Populations: Scoping Review.JMIR cardio · 2022Article
- Barriers and Supports in eHealth Implementation among People with Chronic Cardiovascular Ailments: Integrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Pandemic tele-smart: a contactless tele-health system for efficient monitoring of remotely located COVID-19 quarantine wards in India using near-field communication and natural language processing system.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Mechanism Influencing Older People's Willingness to Use Intelligent Aged-Care Products.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Integrated Telehealth and Telecare for Monitoring Frail Elderly with Chronic Disease.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increase in the number of people having a chronic disease, there is an increase in households having more than a single person suffering from the same chronic illness. One problem of monitoring such patients in their own home is that current devices have a limitation in the number of people who can use a single device. This study investigates the use of Near Field Communication (NFC) for identification in a multi-user environment.
methodsA mixed-method qualitative and quantitative approach was adopted, including focus groups, observations and a field trial. Data were collected in three phases. In Phase 1, five focus groups were conducted with patients to determine their beliefs, concerns and issues with using identification in remote patient monitoring devices. In Phase 2, participants were given a blood pressure monitor modified to include an NFC reader to enable identification. The modified device was given to patients living as a couple in the same household and both suffering from hypertension. Both patients used the device for a period of two weeks to observe their acceptance of the technology and determine their experience of usage. A total of 40 (20 couples) patients participated in the trial. Non-adherence to the full monitoring regimen was low and was mainly due to usability issues or commitments taking them away from the home and thus unable to take readings. After the trial period participants were invited to discuss their experiences with the technology in a focus group discussion (Phase 3), a total of five focus groups were conducted. Focus group discussions with the patients revealed that most participants liked using the system and were not apprehensive towards Healthcare Information Technology (HIT). The participants also had suggestions for improvements that could be made to the modified blood pressure monitor (such as, rechargeable in place batteries, integrate the components, easier to use cuff, and increased sensitivity of the NFC reader) that might improve the overall experience of the proposed technology and its acceptance.
conclusionThe study proposes a new framework, the Senior Patient Technology Acceptance Model (SPTAM) that offers an understanding of the needs of the elderly towards technology use and the factors that influence its acceptance. SPTAM emphasises that involving the patient in the early stages of development can lead to a more user-centred technology and help in identifying any underlying issues at an early stage, thus avoiding adding features which patients do not need. The findings from this empirical research can be used as recommendations to improve current RPM devices, save the NHS costs, inform standardization groups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.