Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30001997›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2018

Barriers to and Facilitators of Engagement With Remote Measurement Technology for Managing Health: Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Findings.

Sara Simblett, Ben Greer, Faith Matcham, Hannah Curtis, Ashley Polhemus, José Ferrão, Peter Gamble, Til Wykes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 162 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
162citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–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

162 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Continuous glucose monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of barriers and opportunities for care improvement.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

102 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Sara SimblettInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8075-8238
Ben GreerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8687-4002
Faith MatchamInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4055-904X
Hannah CurtisInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8322-869X
Ashley PolhemusMSD IT Global Innovation Center, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5056-5785
José FerrãoMSD IT Global Innovation Center, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-1001-1451
Peter GambleMSD IT Global Innovation Center, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-1851-6681
Til WykesInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Psychology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5881-8003

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote measurement technology refers to the use of mobile health technology to track and measure change in health status in real time as part of a person's everyday life. With accurate measurement, remote measurement technology offers the opportunity to augment health care by providing personalized, precise, and preemptive interventions that support insight into patterns of health-related behavior and self-management. However, for successful implementation, users need to be engaged in its use.

objectiveOur objective was to systematically review the literature to update and extend the understanding of the key barriers to and facilitators of engagement with and use of remote measurement technology, to guide the development of future remote measurement technology resources.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines involving original studies dating back to the last systematic review published in 2014. We included studies if they met the following entry criteria: population (people using remote measurement technology approaches to aid management of health), intervention (remote measurement technology system), comparison group (no comparison group specified), outcomes (qualitative or quantitative evaluation of the barriers to and facilitators of engagement with this system), and study design (randomized controlled trials, feasibility studies, and observational studies). We searched 5 databases (MEDLINE, IEEE Xplore, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) for articles published from January 2014 to May 2017. Articles were independently screened by 2 researchers. We extracted study characteristics and conducted a content analysis to define emerging themes to synthesize findings. Formal quality assessments were performed to address risk of bias.

resultsA total of 33 studies met inclusion criteria, employing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods designs. Studies were conducted in 10 countries, included male and female participants, with ages ranging from 8 to 95 years, and included both active and passive remote monitoring systems for a diverse range of physical and mental health conditions. However, they were relatively short and had small sample sizes, and reporting of usage statistics was inconsistent. Acceptability of remote measurement technology according to the average percentage of time used (64%-86.5%) and dropout rates (0%-44%) was variable. The barriers and facilitators from the content analysis related to health status, perceived utility and value, motivation, convenience and accessibility, and usability.

conclusionsThe results of this review highlight gaps in the design of studies trialing remote measurement technology, including the use of quantitative assessment of usage and acceptability. Several processes that could facilitate engagement with this technology have been identified and may drive the development of more person-focused remote measurement technology. However, these factors need further testing through carefully designed experimental studies.

trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42017060644; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=60644 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70K4mThTr).

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationRemote Sensing TechnologyTelemedicineAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesYoung AdultengagementmHealthpatient participationremote sensing technologyreviewsystematic reviewtechnologytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID30001997
PMCPMC6062692

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.