ArticleDialogues in health2022
Interrupting chains of respiratory infections via remote patient monitoring in ambulatory care - a randomized controlled trial during the 2020/21 infection season.
Article in Dialogues in health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim of the study: The aim of the study was to investigate patient satisfaction, saving of time and the possible reduction of visits to medical practices that use Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) during treatment compared to usual care. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial between October 2020 and May 2021, the participating medical practices were randomized into three groups (two different RPM systems, one control). Doctors were required to enroll patients ≥18 years with acute respiratory infection in possession of a web-enabled device, such as a laptop, tablet or computer. After a three-month study phase, doctors were asked to describe the treatment of their patients via online survey. Patients were also questioned. The analysis was carried out descriptively and through group comparisons. Results: 51 practices with 121 patients were included. Overall, the results generally show a positive assessment of digital care on the patient side. As for the doctors, handling and integrating the systems into established practice routines seem to be a challenge. Further, the number of patient visits to the medical practice was not reduced by using the systems. Doctors did not save time, but the relationship to the patients was intensified. Conclusion: While there was no indication for an increase in efficiency by using RPM systems, participating doctors indicated their potential for an enhanced interaction between doctor and patient. In particular, intensified interaction contact with patients with chronic diseases (e. g. COPD, long-COVID) could be of long-term interest and importance for doctors in ambulatory care.
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.