ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Oncology Clinicians' Perspectives of a Remote Patient Monitoring Program: Multi-Modal Case Study Approach.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. 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.
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) aims to improve patient access to care and communication with clinical providers. Overall, understanding the usability of RPM applications and their influence on clinical care workflows is limited from the perspectives of clinician end users at a cancer center in the Northeastern United States. Objective: This study aims to explore the usability and functionality of RPM and elicit the perceptions and experiences of oncology clinicians using RPM for oncology patients after hospital discharge. Methods: The sample included 30 of 98 clinicians (31% response rate) managing at least 5 patients in the RPM program and responding to the mHealth usability between March 2021 and October 2021. Overall, clinicians responded positively to the survey. Item responses with the highest proportion of disagreement were explored further. A nested sample of 5 clinicians who responded to the study survey (30% response rate) participated in interview sessions conducted from November 2021 to February 2022, averaging 60 minutes each. Results: Survey responses highlighted that RPM was easy to use and learn and verified symptom alerts during follow-up phone calls. Areas to improve identified practice changes from reporting RPM alerts through digital portals and its influence on clinicians' workload burden. Interview sessions revealed 3 main themes: clinician understanding and usability constraints, patient constraints, and suggestions for improving the program. Subthemes for each theme were explored, characterizing technical and functional limitations that could be addressed to enhance efficiency, workflow, and user experience. Conclusions: Clinicians support the value of RPM for improving symptom management and engaging with providers. Improvements to address RPM challenges include functional changes to enhance the program's utility, such as input from patients about temporal changes in their symptoms and technical resources for home monitoring devices.
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.