ArticleBMC primary care2025
Tailoring remote patient management to optimise cardiovascular risk management in primary care: a mixed-methods implementation study informing large-scale implementation.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cardiovascular Care Pathway Supported by Remote Patient Management in Dutch Primary Care: Cost-Effectiveness, Budget Impact, and Workload Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Involving Families in Cardiac Care Through Remote Patient and Family Management: Focus Group and Journey Mapping Study.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimRemote patient management (RPM) effectively aids cardiovascular risk management, but its large-scale implementation remains challenging. Panel management may facilitate implementation by using comprehensive data to identify patients at risk of cardiovascular diseases and tailor interventions. This study evaluated the implementation strategies and clinical outcomes of a multi-component RPM intervention 'Connect@Heart'.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study over six months in four primary care practices in the Netherlands, evaluating two patient groups: (i) patients with a BMI < 25 received a blood pressure monitor alone (BP Box), and (ii) patients with a BMI > 25 or cardiovascular disease received a combination of a BP monitor, a scale, and an activity tracker (Lifestyle Box). Baseline and six-month follow-up assessments were performed using linear mixed-effects models, and implementation outcomes were evaluated using the RE-AIM framework.
resultsOur approach achieved high enrolment, with 189 out of 200 initially interested patients (94%) participating. The intervention was associated with a significant reduction in BP levels within both groups (BP Box systolic BP from 139 ± 21 mmHg at baseline to 132 ± 18 mmHg at follow-up, p < 0.001 and Lifestyle Box 142 ± 16 mmHg to 131 ± 14 mmHg at follow-up, p < 0.001), especially for those with uncontrolled hypertension. After six months, 66% of patients performed measurements weekly. All participating practices continued using the intervention post-study.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that proactively identifying patient panels at risk for CVD and tailoring multi-component RPM interventions to patient panels are promising implementation strategies for reaching favourable clinical outcomes at scale.
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.