ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
Co-constructing stories with patients with heart failure to envision future remote care possibilities: a qualitative interview and sketching study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although remote patient management (RPM) shows promise for improving chronic heart failure (HF) management, its effectiveness depends on technology acceptance, usability, and patient engagement. However, patients are often involved only after systems are implemented, limiting opportunities to align RPM with their needs. This study explored patients' expectations, wishes, and concerns regarding future RPM using participatory design methods to inform more patient-centred RPM. Methods: Patients with HF using RPM were recruited from a Dutch hospital for individual, semi-structured interviews. We employed a co-constructing stories approach, inviting participants to imagine future scenarios of remote care. Guided by narrative prompts about potential developments in RPM, participants were encouraged to discuss how such technologies might shape their experiences. During the interviews, one researcher concurrently created sketches of the participants' answers, creating an evolving trace of the dialogue. The visual data were subsequently analysed using Annotated Visual Analysis to identify themes. Results: Six patients were interviewed, producing 7 h of audio and 18 A3 pages of sketch notes. Four key themes emerged: Conclusion: Inviting patients to reflect on remote care provided valuable insights into their needs and expectations for future RPM. Participatory design methodologies facilitated rich discussions about patients' experiences, needs, and expectations regarding future RPM. Patients emphasised RPM should be actionable, minimally invasive, adaptable to daily life, and complemented by human contact. This highlights the importance of socio-technical systems that empower self-management while maintaining professional support. These findings can guide more human-centred RPM designs for HF 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.