Trial reportPloS one2019
Patients' experiences of remote communication after pacemaker implant: The NORDLAND study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Development and preliminary testing of a patient reported experience measure for chronic disease patients in Singapore.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Very Elderly Patients: Advantages and Specific Problems.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Remote Communications between Patients and General Practitioners: Do Patients Choose the Most Effective Communication Routes?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Patient Outcomes Associated with the First Remote Monitoring Experience of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in South Korea.Clinical interventions in aging · 2023Article
- Patients' Experiences and Communication with Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Remote Monitoring of CIEDs-For Both Safety, Economy and Convenience?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- An experimental study on a piezoelectric vibration energy harvester for self-powered cardiac pacemakers.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Correction: Patients' experiences of remote communication after pacemaker implant: The NORDLAND study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of 'patient experience' has become central to how to improve healthcare. Remote communication with patients is today a frequent practice in healthcare services, showing similar outcomes to standard outpatient care while enabling cost reduction in both formal and informal care. The purpose of this study was to analyse the experiences of people with telemonitoring pacemakers.
methodsPatients were randomly allocated to either the telemonitoring or hospital monitoring follow-ups. Using the 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ), as well as an ad-hoc survey from the 'telehealth patient satisfaction survey' and 'costs survey', patients' experiences were measured six months after the pacemaker implant in a cohort of 50 consecutive patients. The mean age was 74.8 (± 11.75) years and 26 (52%) patients were male of which 1 was lost in follow-up. Finally, 24 patients were followed up with standard hospital monitoring, while 25 used the telemonitoring system. Differences in baseline characteristics between groups were not found.
resultsFindings showed overall positive and similar experiences in patients living with telemonitoring and hospital monitoring pacemakers. Significant differences were found in GS-PEQ concerning how telemonitoring patients received less information about their diagnosis/afflictions (p = 0.046). We did not find significant differences in other items such as 'confidence in the clinicians' professional skills', 'treatment perception adapted to their situation', 'involvement in decisions regarding the treatment', 'perception of hospital organisation', 'waiting before admission', 'satisfaction of help and treatment received', 'benefit received', and 'incorrect treatment'.
conclusionsThe remote communication of pacemakers was met with positive levels of patients' experiences similarly to patients in the hospital monitoring follow-up. However, telemonitoring patients received less information. Thus, improving the quality and timing of information is required in telemonitoring patients in the planning and organisation of future remote communication healthcare services for people living with a pacemaker implant.
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.