Cited by 54Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsChronic Disease Management Strategies

Remote monitoring of chronic diseases: a landscape assessment of policies in four European countries

Open access
Rojahn, Katherine, Laplante, Suzanne, Sloand, James, Main, Claire, Ibrahim, Aftab, Wild, Janet, Sturt, Nicky, Areteou, Thelga +1 more·2016·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) is defined as the surveillance of device-transmitted outpatient data. RM is expected to enable better management of chronic diseases. The objective of this research was to identify public policies concerning RM in four European countries. METHODS: Searches of the medical literature, the Internet, and Ministry of Health websites for the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, Italy, and Spain were performed in order to identify RM policies for chronic diseases, including end stage renal disease (ESRD), chronic pulmonary obstructive disease (COPD), diabetes, heart failure, and hypertension. Searches were first performed in Q1 2014 and updated in Q4 2015. In addition, in depth interviews were conducted with payers/policymakers in each country. Information was obtained on existing policies, disease areas and RM services covered and level of reimbursement, other incentives such as quality indicators, past/current assessments of RM technologies, diseases perceived to benefit most from RM, and concerns about RM. RESULTS: Policies on RM and/or telemedicine were identified in all four countries. Pilot projects (mostly in diabetes, COPD, and/or heart failure) existed or were planned in most countries. Perceived value of RM was moderate to high, with the highest rating given for heart failure. Interviewees expressed concerns about sharing of medical information, and the need for capital investment. Patients recently discharged from hospital, and patients living remotely, or with serious and/or complicated diseases, were believed to be the most likely to benefit from RM. Formal reimbursement is scarce, but more commonly available for patients with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: In the four European countries surveyed, RM has attracted considerable interest for its potential to increase the efficiency of healthcare for chronic diseases. Although rare at this moment, incentives to use RM technology are likely to increase in the near future as the body of evidence of clinical and/or economic benefit grows.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0155738

Cites

29 of 29 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?

  • Current AI applications within healthcare are often standalone applications used for diagnostics using medical imaging and disease prediction using remote patient monitoring.

    “Current AI applications within healthcare are often standalone applications, these are often used for diagnostics using medical imaging and for disease prediction using remote patient monitoring [38].”

    From The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications (2020) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Introduction (page not provided) says remote monitoring and trend analysis can detect deterioration in a patient’s condition early. It does not describe AI-based disease prediction, standalone AI applications, or diagnosis using medical imaging; its mention of transmitted still images is not evidence of AI imaging diagnostics. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rojahn, K., Laplante, S., Sloand, J., Main, C., Ibrahim, A., Wild, J., Sturt, N., Areteou, T., & Johnson, K. I.
Affiliations
  • Baxter (United States) (US)
  • Compton Community College District (US)
Corresponding author
Rojahn, Katherine
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2016-05-19
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e0155738
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2408214547
Cited by
54
References
31
Citations by year
2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter Healthcare Corporation funded and hired Double Helix to conduct the study.)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
remote monitoring, telemedicine, chronic disease, health policy, reimbursement, end-stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, pilot project, data sharing, health care efficiency, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain
MeSH terms
Chronic Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Germany, United Kingdom, Health Policy, Heart Failure, Humans, Hypertension, Italy, Kidney Failure, Chronic, Monitoring, Physiologic, Spain, Telemedicine, Remote Consultation, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

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