Cited by 49Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Health Care Professionals’ Perceptions of Home Telemonitoring in Heart Failure Care: Cross-Sectional Survey

Open access
Aamodt, Ina Thon, Lycholip, Edita, Celutkiene, Jelena, Strömberg, Anna, Atar, Dan, Falk, Ragnhild Sørum, von Lueder, Thomas, Hellesø, Ragnhild +2 more·2019·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive telemonitoring (TM) can be used in heart failure (HF) patients to perform early detection of decompensation at home, prevent unnecessary health care utilization, and decrease health care costs. However, the evidence is not sufficient to be part of HF guidelines for follow-up care, and we have no knowledge of how TM is used in the Nordic Baltic region. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe health care professionals' (HCPs) perception of and presumed experience with noninvasive TM in daily HF patient care, perspectives of the relevance of and reasons for applying noninvasive TM, and barriers to the use of noninvasive TM. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed between September and December 2016 in Norway and Lithuania with physicians and nurses treating HF patients at either a hospital ward or an outpatient clinic. A total of 784 questionnaires were sent nationwide by postal mail to 107 hospitals. The questionnaire consisted of 43 items with close- and open-ended questions. In Norway, the response rate was 68.7% (226/329), with 57 of 60 hospitals participating, whereas the response rate was 68.1% (310/455) in Lithuania, with 41 of 47 hospitals participating. Responses to the closed questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the open-ended questions were analyzed using summative content analysis. RESULTS: This study showed that noninvasive TM is not part of the current daily clinical practice in Norway or Lithuania. A minority of HCPs responded to be familiar with noninvasive TM in HF care in Norway (48/226, 21.2%) and Lithuania (64/310, 20.6%). Approximately half of the HCPs in both countries perceived noninvasive TM to be relevant in follow-up of HF patients in Norway (131/226, 58.0%) and Lithuania (172/310, 55.5%). For physicians in both countries and nurses in Norway, the 3 most mentioned reasons for introducing noninvasive TM were to improve self-care, to reduce hospitalizations, and to provide high-quality care, whereas the Lithuanian nurses described ability to treat more patients and to reduce their workload as reasons for introducing noninvasive TM. The main barriers to implement noninvasive TM were lack of funding from health care authorities or the Territorial Patient Fund. Moreover, HCPs perceive that HF patients themselves could represent barriers because of their physical or mental condition in addition to a lack of internet access. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in Norway and Lithuania are currently nonusers of TM in daily HF care. However, they perceive a future with TM to improve the quality of care for HF patients. Financial barriers and HF patients' condition may have an impact on the use of TM, whereas sufficient funding from health care authorities and improved knowledge may encourage the more widespread use of TM in the Nordic Baltic region and beyond.

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 · 10.2196/10362

Cites

41 of 41 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?

  • Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of remote patient monitoring between clinic visits in detecting health deterioration earlier and enabling prompt intervention, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions.

    “Numerous studies have highlighted the benefits of remote patient monitoring between clinic visits in detecting health deterioration earlier and enabling prompt intervention, particularly for individuals with chronic conditions [44–50].”

    From Caregiver experiences of an integrative patient-centered digital health application for pediatric type 1 diabetes care: Findings from a pilot clinical trial (2025) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Introduction (Background; page not available) says home telemonitoring detects decompensation in heart-failure patients. The Results (Relevance for Follow-Up; page not available) report that surveyed professionals considered it useful for monitoring deterioration and adjusting treatment remotely. The paper does not establish that monitoring enables prompt intervention across chronic conditions, and it notes that evidence on telemonitoring outcomes is inconsistent. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies on remote patient monitoring confirm the importance of HCP involvement with digital tools.

    “Studies on remote patient monitoring confirm the importance of HCP involvement with digital tools [44–48].”

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

Authors
Aamodt, I. T., Lycholip, E., Celutkiene, J., Strömberg, A., Atar, D., Falk, R. S., von Lueder, T., Hellesø, R., Jaarsma, T., & Lie, I.
Affiliations
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Vilnius University (LT)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Aamodt, Ina Thon
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
e10362
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2900150976
Cited by
49
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
NordForsk
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 › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
home health monitoring, heart failure, healthcare professionals' perceptions, follow-up care, nurses, physicians, hospitalization reduction, self-care, funding barriers, Nordic-Baltic region, Norway, Lithuania, telehealth adoption, workload reduction, quality of care, health care costs
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Heart Failure, Home Care Services, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Telemedicine

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