Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37735970›Full record

SynthesisThe Permanente journal2023

Benefits and Challenges of Remote Patient Monitoring as Perceived by Health Care Practitioners: A Systematic Review.

Luiza Palmieri Serrano, Karla C Maita, Francisco R Avila, Ricardo A Torres-Guzman, John P Garcia, Abdullah S Eldaly, Clifton R Haider, Christopher L Felton, Margaret R Paulson, Michael J Maniaci and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Permanente journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

19 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

11 authors.

Luiza Palmieri SerranoDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Karla C MaitaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Francisco R AvilaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Ricardo A Torres-GuzmanDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
John P GarciaDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Abdullah S EldalyDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Clifton R HaiderDepartment of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Christopher L FeltonDepartment of Physiology and Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Margaret R PaulsonDivision of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Health Systems, Eau Claire, WI, USA.
Michael J ManiaciDivision of Hospital Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-1787
Antonio J ForteDivision of Plastic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2004-7538

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRemote patient monitoring (RPM), or telemonitoring, offers ways for health care practitioners to gather real-time information on the physiological conditions of patients. As telemedicine, and thus telemonitoring, is becoming increasingly relevant in today's society, understanding the practitioners' opinions is crucial. This systematic review evaluates the perspectives and experiences of health care practitioners with telemonitoring technologies.

methodsA database search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for the selection of articles measuring health care practitioners' perspectives and experiences with RPM technologies published between 2017 and 2021. Only articles written in English were included. No statistical analysis was performed and thus this is a qualitative review.

resultsA total of 1605 studies were identified after the initial search. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this review's authors, 13 articles were included in this review. In all, 2351 practitioners' perspectives and experience utilizing RPM technology in a variety of medical specialties were evaluated through close- and open-ended surveys. Recurring themes emerged for both the benefits and challenges. Common benefits included continuous monitoring of patients to provide prompt care, improvement of patient self-care, efficient communication, increased patient confidence, visualization of health trends, and greater patient education. Challenges comprised increased workload, higher patient anxiety, data inaccuracy, disorienting technology, financial issues, and privacy concerns.

conclusionHealth care practitioners generally believe that RPM is feasible for application. Additionally, there is a consensus that telemonitoring strategies will become increasingly relevant. However, there are still drawbacks to the technology that need to be considered.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareTelemedicineHumansMonitoring, Physiologic

Identifiers

PMID37735970
PMCPMC10730976

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.