Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35443957›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Enablers and barriers in upscaling telemonitoring across geographic boundaries: a scoping review.

Harm Gijsbers, Tim M Feenstra, Nina Eminovic, Debora van Dam, Shaikh Azam Nurmohamed, Tom van de Belt, Marlies P Schijven

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

7 authors.

Harm GijsbersSurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8065-7683
Tim M FeenstraSurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nina EminovicMedical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Debora van DamSurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Shaikh Azam NurmohamedInternal Medicine (Nephrology), Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tom van de BeltHealth Innovations Lab, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5401-8973
Marlies P SchijvenSurgery, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands m.p.schijven@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7013-0116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectiveTelemonitoring is a method to monitor a person's vital functions via their physiological data at distance, using technology. While pilot studies on the proposed benefits of telemonitoring show promising results, it appears challenging to implement telemonitoring on a larger scale. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the enablers and barriers for upscaling of telemonitoring across different settings and geographical boundaries in healthcare.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, ProQuest and IEEE databases were searched. Resulting outcomes were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies were considered eligible if they focused on remote monitoring of patients' vital functions and data was transmitted digitally. Using scoping review methodology, selected studies were systematically assessed on their factors of influence on upscaling of telemonitoring.

resultsA total of 2298 titles and abstracts were screened, and 19 articles were included for final analysis. This analysis revealed 89 relevant factors of influence: 26 were reported as enabler, 18 were reported as barrier and 45 factors were reported being both. The actual utilisation of telemonitoring varied widely across studies. The most frequently mentioned factors of influence are: resources such as costs or reimbursement, access or interface with electronic medical record and knowledge of frontline staff.

conclusionSuccessful upscaling of telemonitoring requires insight into its critical success factors, especially at an overarching national level. To future-proof and facilitate upscaling of telemonitoring, it is recommended to use this type of technology in usual care and to find means for reimbursement early on. A wide programme on change management, nationally or regionally coordinated, is key. Clear regulatory conditions and professional guidelines may further facilitate widespread adoption and use of telemonitoring. Future research should focus on converting the 'enablers and barriers' as identified by this review into a guideline supporting further nationwide upscaling of telemonitoring.

Indexed as

Research DesignTelemedicineHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicChange managementHealth informaticsTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35443957
PMCPMC9021767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.