Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36042505›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Hurdles to developing and scaling remote patients' health management tools and systems: a scoping review.

Barimwotubiri Ruyobeza, Sara S Grobbelaar, Adele Botha

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Digital Case Manager-A Data-Driven Tool to Support Family Caregivers with Initial Guidance.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barimwotubiri RuyobezaDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0003-3667-9281
Sara S GrobbelaarDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University, South Africa AND DSI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. ssgrobbelaar@sun.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-2793-9689
Adele BothaDepartment of Industrial Engineering, Stellenbosch University and CSIR Next Generation Enterprises and Institutions, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite all the excitement and hype generated regarding the expected transformative impact of digital technology on the healthcare industry, traditional healthcare systems around the world have largely remained unchanged and resultant improvements in developed countries are slower than anticipated. One area which was expected to significantly improve the quality of and access to primary healthcare services in particular is remote patient monitoring and management. Based on a combination of rapid advances in body sensors and information and communication technologies (ICT), it was hoped that remote patient management tools and systems (RPMTSs) would significantly reduce the care burden on traditional healthcare systems as well as health-related costs. However, the uptake or adoption of above systems has been extremely slow and their roll out has not yet properly taken off especially in developing countries where they ought to have made the greatest positive impact.

aimThe aim of the study was to assess whether or not recent, relevant literature would support the development of in-community, design, deployment and implementation framework based on three factors thought to be important drivers and levers of RPMTS's adoption and scalability.

methodsA rapid, scoping review conducted on relevant articles obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, PMC and Cochrane databases and grey literature on Google and published between 2012 and May 2020, by combining a number of relevant search terms and phrases.

resultsMost RPMTSs are targeted at and focused on a single disease, do not extensively involve patients and clinicians in their early planning and design phases, are not designed to best serve a specific catchment area and are mainly directed at post-hospital, disease management settings. This may be leading to a situation where patients, potential patients and clinicians simply do not make use of these tools, leading to low adoption and scalability thereof.

conclusionThe development of a user-centred, context-dependent, customizable design and deployment framework could potentially increase the adoption and scalability of RPMTSs, if such framework addressed a combination of diseases, prevalent in a given specific catchment area, especially in developing countries with limited financial resources.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth ServicesCommunicationHealth Care CostsHumansMEDLINEAccessibilityAdoption and scalabilityDesign frameworkIntegrationRemote patient managementVersatility

Identifiers

PMID36042505
PMCPMC9427160
OpenAlexW4293694569

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.