Cited by 128Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Use of Home Telemonitoring to Support Multidisciplinary Care of Heart Failure Patients in Finland: Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access
Vuorinen, Anna-Leena, Leppänen, Juha, Kaijanranta, Hannu, Kulju, Minna, Heliö, Tiina, van Gils, Mark, Lähteenmäki, Jaakko·2014·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients suffer from frequent and repeated hospitalizations, causing a substantial economic burden on society. Hospitalizations can be reduced considerably by better compliance with self-care. Home telemonitoring has the potential to boost patients' compliance with self-care, although the results are still contradictory. OBJECTIVE: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in order to study whether the multidisciplinary care of heart failure patients promoted with telemonitoring leads to decreased HF-related hospitalization. METHODS: HF patients were eligible whose left ventricular ejection fraction was lower than 35%, NYHA functional class ≥2, and who needed regular follow-up. Patients in the telemonitoring group (n=47) measured their body weight, blood pressure, and pulse and answered symptom-related questions on a weekly basis, reporting their values to the heart failure nurse using a mobile phone app. The heart failure nurse followed the status of patients weekly and if necessary contacted the patient. The primary outcome was the number of HF-related hospital days. Control patients (n=47) received multidisciplinary treatment according to standard practices. Patients' clinical status, use of health care resources, adherence, and user experience from the patients' and the health care professionals' perspective were studied. RESULTS: Adherence, calculated as a proportion of weekly submitted self-measurements, was close to 90%. No difference was found in the number of HF-related hospital days (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.812, P=.351), which was the primary outcome. The intervention group used more health care resources: they paid an increased number of visits to the nurse (IRR=1.73, P<.001), spent more time at the nurse reception (mean difference of 48.7 minutes, P<.001), and there was a greater number of telephone contacts between the nurse and intervention patients (IRR=3.82, P<.001 for nurse-induced contacts and IRR=1.63, P=.049 for patient-induced contacts). There were no statistically significant differences in patients' clinical health status or in their self-care behavior. The technology received excellent feedback from the patient and professional side with a high adherence rate throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Home telemonitoring did not reduce the number of patients' HF-related hospital days and did not improve the patients' clinical condition. Patients in the telemonitoring group contacted the Cardiology Outpatient Clinic more frequently, and on this way increased the use of health care resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01759368; http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01759368 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6UFxiCk8Z).

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/jmir.3651

Cites

32 of 32 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?

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
Vuorinen, A.-L., Leppänen, J., Kaijanranta, H., Kulju, M., Heliö, T., van Gils, M., & Lähteenmäki, J.
Affiliations
  • VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (FI)
  • Helsinki University Hospital (FI)
Corresponding author
Vuorinen, Anna-Leena
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2014-12-11
Volume
16
Issue
12
Pages
e282
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049660507
Cited by
128
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7
FWCI
4.57
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)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
Funders
Teknologian Tutkimuskeskus VTT
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • 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
Keywords
heart failure, home health monitoring, multidisciplinary care, heart failure hospitalization, self-care adherence, mobile phone app, nurse follow-up, health care utilization, patient experience, left ventricular ejection fraction, technology acceptance, hospital readmission prevention, user experience, health care costs, provider satisfaction, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Female, Finland, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Patient Compliance, Self Care, Telenursing, Home Health Nursing

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