Cited by 78Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare

Heart Failure Patients Monitored With Telemedicine: Patient Satisfaction, a Review of the Literature

Kraai, I.H., Luttik, M.L.A., de Jong, R.M., Jaarsma, T., Hillege, H.L.·2011·Journal of Cardiac Failure

Abstract

Background Remote monitoring of the clinical status of heart failure patients has developed rapidly and is the subject of several trials. Patient satisfaction is an important outcome, as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use in clinical research, and should be included in studies concerning remote monitoring. The objective of this review is to describe the current state of the literature on patient satisfaction with noninvasive telemedicine, regarding definition, measurement, and overall level of patient satisfaction with telemedicine.Methods and results The Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Cinahl databases were searched using heart failure-, satisfaction-, and telemedicine-related search terms. The literature search identified 193 publications, which were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Fourteen articles were included. None of the articles described a clear definition or concept of patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was measured with self-developed questionnaires or face-to-face or telephonic interviews. None of the articles used the same questionnaire or telephonic survey to measure patient satisfaction. Only one questionnaire was assessed for validity and reliability. In general, patients seemed to be satisfied or very satisfied with the use of telemedicine.Conclusions Measurement of patient satisfaction is still underexposed in telemedicine research and the measurement of patient satisfaction with telemedicine underappreciated with poorly constructed questionnaires.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.03.009

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kraai, I. H., Luttik, M. L. A., de Jong, R. M., Jaarsma, T., & Hillege, H. L.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Kraai, I.H.
Venue
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
684-690
ISSN
1071-9164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094815827
Cited by
78
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cardiac Failure (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Keywords
heart failure, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, patient satisfaction, satisfaction measurement, questionnaire reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Heart Failure, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Patient Satisfaction, Telemedicine, Remote Sensing Technology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review