Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39092691›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2024

Patient Characteristics Associated With Disparities in Engagement With and Experience of COVID-19 Remote Home Monitoring Services: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation.

Nadia E Crellin, Lauren Herlitz, Manbinder S Sidhu, Jo Ellins, Theo Georghiou, Ian Litchfield, Efthalia Massou, Pei Li Ng, Chris Sherlaw-Johnson, Sonila M Tomini and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Balancing Trade-Offs in Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement in Rapid Evaluation: Reflections and Lessons.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    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

13 authors.

Nadia E CrellinResearch and Policy, Nuffield Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9497-5874
Lauren HerlitzNIHR Children and Families Policy Research Unit, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Manbinder S SidhuSchool of Social Policy, Health Services Management Centre, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jo EllinsSchool of Social Policy, Health Services Management Centre, College of Social Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Theo GeorghiouResearch and Policy, Nuffield Trust, London, UK.
Ian LitchfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1169-5392
Efthalia MassouDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Pei Li NgDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Chris Sherlaw-JohnsonResearch and Policy, Nuffield Trust, London, UK.
Sonila M TominiDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Cecilia Vindrola-PadrosDepartment of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK.
Holly WaltonDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8746-059X
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-6140

Funding

This is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe adoption of remote healthcare methods has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but evidence suggests that some patients need additional support to engage remotely, potentially increasing health disparities if needs are not met. This study of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services across England explores experiences of and engagement with the service across different patient groups.

methodsThis was a mixed-methods study with survey and interview data collected from 28 services across England between February and June 2021. Surveys were conducted with staff and patients and carers receiving the service. Interviews with staff service leads, patients and carers were conducted in 17 sites. Quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis.

findingsSurvey responses were received from 292 staff and 1069 patients and carers. Twenty-three staff service leads, 59 patients and 3 carers were interviewed. Many service leads reported that they had considered inclusivity when adapting the service for their local population; strategies included widening the eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups and creating referral pathways. However, disparities were reported across patient groups in their experiences and engagement. Older patients reported the service to be less helpful (p = 0.004), were more likely to report a problem (p < 0.001) and had more difficulty in understanding information (p = 0.005). Health status (p = 0.004), ethnicity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.001) and employment (p = 0.007) were associated with differential engagement with monitoring, and minority ethnic groups reported more difficulty understanding service information (p = 0.001). Qualitative data found illness severity to be an important factor in the support required, and patients' living situation and social network affected whether they found the service reassuring.

conclusionAddressing health disparities must be a key focus in the design and delivery of remote care. Services should be tailored to match the needs of their local population, encourage access through collaboration and referral pathways with other services and monitor their inclusiveness. Involving patients and staff in service design can illuminate the diversity of patients' needs and experiences of care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. Workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and dissemination activities. Study documents (such as consent forms, topic guides, surveys and information sheets) were reviewed by PPI members; patient surveys and interview guides were piloted, and members also commented on the manuscript.

Indexed as

COVID-19Home Care ServicesTelemedicineAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID‐19disparitieshealth inequalitieshome monitoringpatient engagementremote monitoring

Identifiers

PMID39092691
PMCPMC11295099

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.