Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941904›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up.

Daniel Catalan-Matamoros, Antonio Lopez-Villegas, Cesar Leal Costa, Rafael Bautista-Mesa, Emilio Robles-Musso, Patricia Rocamora Perez, Remedios Lopez-Liria

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02234245 (Economic Evaluation in Cardiology), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02234245 nacompletednot on this map

Economic Evaluation in Cardiology: Remote Monitoring of Pacemakers

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversidad de AlmeriaRan2012 to 2018Enrolled83ConditionsCardiovascular DiseaseArmsTelemedicine System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Daniel Catalan-MatamorosHealth Research Centre, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain.
Antonio Lopez-VillegasSocial Involvement of Critical and Emergency Medicine, CTS-609 Research Group, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido-Almeria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0815-5421
Cesar Leal CostaNursing Department, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-3877
Rafael Bautista-MesaManagement Unit, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido-Almeria, Spain.
Emilio Robles-MussoIntensive Care Unit, Hospital de Poniente, El Ejido-Almeria, Spain.
Patricia Rocamora PerezHealth Research Centre, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0662-2487
Remedios Lopez-LiriaHealth Research Centre, University of Almeria, Almeria, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, in-person visits could help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxiety linked to their condition and maintain better communication with their doctors than simple remote control of their device status. Therefore, our objective was to analyze the experiences and communication comparing telemonitoring (TM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) of patients with pacemakers. A single-center, controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected five years after implantation in a cohort of 89 consecutive patients assigned to two different groups: TM and CM. The 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients' experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. Additionally, an ad-hoc survey including items from the 'Telehealth Patient Satisfaction Survey' and a 'costs survey' was used. After five years, 55 patients completed the study (TM = 21; CM = 34). Participants' mean (±SD) age was 81 (±6.47), and 31% were females. No differences in baseline characteristics between groups were found. The comparative analyses TM versus CM showed some significant differences. According to GS-PEQ, TM users received adequate information about their diagnosis or afflictions (p = .035) and the treatment was better adapted to their situation (p = .009). Both groups reported negative experiences regarding their involvement in their treatment decisions, the waiting time before admission, and perceived a low-benefit. According to HCCQ, the TM group experienced poorer consultation management by the healthcare provider (p = .041). Participants reported positive overall communication experiences. The study provides insights into the experiences and communication in PM monitoring services as well as specific areas where users reported negative experiences such as the consultation management by clinicians. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.

Indexed as

CommunicationPacemaker, ArtificialPatient SatisfactionAdaptation, PhysiologicalAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleNon-Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34941904
PMCPMC8699982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.