CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 250Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsTechnology Use by Older Adults

Patient expectations and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic diseases: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies

Open access
Walker, Rachael C., Tong, Allison, Howard, Kirsten, Palmer, Suetonia C.·2019·International Journal of Medical Informatics
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of patients' beliefs, attitudes, expectations, and experiences of remote monitoring for chronic conditions across different healthcare contexts and populations. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL, Google Scholar, and reference lists of related studies through to July 2017. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse the findings of the primary studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings PARTICIPANTS: Adults with chronic diseases OUTCOMES: Patient beliefs, attitudes, expectations and experiences of remote monitoring RESULTS: We included 16 studies involving 307 participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, and end stage kidney disease. The studies were conducted in 8 countries. We identified four themes: gaining knowledge and triggering actions (tracking and responding to change, prompting timely and accessible care, supporting self-management and shared decision-making); reassurance and security (safety in being alone, peace of mind); concern about additional burden (reluctance to learn something new, lack of trust in technology, avoiding additional out-of-pocket costs), and jeopardising interpersonal connections (fear of being lost in data, losing face to face contact). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with chronic disease, remote monitoring increased their disease-specific knowledge, triggered earlier clinical assessment and treatment, improved self-management and shared decision-making. However, these potential benefits were balanced against concerns about losing interpersonal contact, and the additional personal responsibility of remote monitoring.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.013

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In prior research, characteristics of more effective RPM programs include targeting high-risk populations and providing timely and responsive care through frequent monitoring.

    “In prior research, characteristics of more effective RPM programs include targeting of high-risk populations and providing timely and responsive care through frequent monitoring.24”

    From Challenges and Facilitators in Implementing Remote Patient Monitoring Programs in Primary Care (2024) · cites this paper as [24]

    Section 3.3.1.2 (page not provided) reports that patients in 12 studies felt frequent home data collection prompted earlier clinical action, supporting the timely-care portion of the claim. The paper does not identify targeting high-risk populations as a characteristic of more effective RPM programs, nor does it evaluate which program designs are more effective. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Walker, R. C., Tong, A., Howard, K., & Palmer, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Eastern Institute of Technology (NZ)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Canterbury District Health Board (NZ)
Corresponding author
Walker, Rachael C.
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
124
Pages
78-85
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.01.013
OpenAlex
W2914268080
Semantic Scholar
15c4a14e8aed9f87dec21bdfa3a4febf68cff7b0
Cited by
250
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
Keywords
remote monitoring, chronic disease, patient expectations, patient experience, patient attitudes and beliefs, self-management, shared decision-making, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, end-stage renal disease, trust in technology, interpersonal relationships
MeSH terms
Adult, Chronic Disease, Decision Making, Delivery of Health Care, Diabetes Mellitus, Heart Failure, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Motivation, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Qualitative Research

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