Observational studyJMIR human factors2025
Patient Satisfaction With a Comprehensive Remote Care Program for Chronic Condition Management for Adults Under Medical Care: Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality of Chronic Care Statistically Mediates the Association Between eHealth Literacy and Self-Management Among Adults with Diabetes in a Shared Care Model.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: More than half of adults in the United States have at least one chronic medical condition. Remote care strategies, including telemedicine, remote monitoring, and connected health devices, are increasingly used to support chronic condition management and adherence to provider-recommended care plans. Evaluating participant satisfaction and perceived usefulness is essential to understanding program value and potential for sustained engagement. Objective: This study aims to evaluate participant satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and self-reported health outcomes associated with a clinically deployed Remote Care program for chronic condition management that included nurse and coach follow-up, health monitoring devices, and digital education tools. Methods: A survey was emailed to 1411 active participants in the Brook Remote Care program between September 23 and December 8, 2023. The survey assessed satisfaction with program features, perceived usefulness, and self-reported health changes. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data, and chi-square tests were used to examine differences by age, gender, program duration, and health conditions. Results: A total of 360 participants completed the survey. Most participants rated the program as useful (320/359, 89%), and 66% (234/357) indicated they were likely to recommend it to others with similar health concerns. Between 68% (216/316) and 84% (277/332) rated specific program features as "good" to "excellent," with nurse monitoring, health monitoring devices, and program cost receiving the most favorable ratings. Nearly half of participants reported improvements in physical health (155/314, 49%), reduced health-related stress (148/326, 45%), and increased knowledge of their condition (172/360, 48%). Additionally, approximately one-third reported improvements in lifestyle behaviors. Longer program duration was associated with higher satisfaction and greater self-reported health improvements. Conclusions: Participants reported high satisfaction with a remote care program designed to support chronic condition self-management. These findings support the value of integrated remote care models that combine device monitoring, personalized follow-up, and patient education to enhance patient experience and promote engagement in self-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.