Key result
Pacemaker telemonitoring is linked to better perceived information and treatment adaptability versus conventional monitoring.
Why the study?
Telemonitoring reduces demanding visits for pacemaker patients, but in-person visits may better alleviate anxiety and maintain physician communication.
Does telemonitoring improve patient experiences and communication compared to conventional monitoring in patients with pacemakers?
Does telemonitoring improve patient experiences and communication compared to conventional monitoring in patients with pacemakers?
Effect estimate: r 0.314 (95% CI 0.008-0.566)
p-value: p=0.035
Telemonitoring for pacemakers over 5 years provides better information and treatment adaptation but may result in poorer perceived consultation management compared to conventional monitoring.
May support telemonitoring to improve perceived information and adaptability; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Patients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, in-person visits could help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxiety linked to their condition and maintain better communication with their doctors than simple remote control of their device status. Therefore, our objective was to analyze the experiences and communication comparing telemonitoring (TM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) of patients with pacemakers. A single-center, controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical trial was designed. Data were collected five years after implantation in a cohort of 89 consecutive patients assigned to two different groups: TM and CM. The 'Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire' (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients' experiences, and the Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication of patients with healthcare professionals. Additionally, an ad-hoc survey including items from the 'Telehealth Patient Satisfaction Survey' and a 'costs survey' was used. After five years, 55 patients completed the study (TM = 21; CM = 34). Participants' mean (±SD) age was 81 (±6.47), and 31% were females. No differences in baseline characteristics between groups were found. The comparative analyses TM versus CM showed some significant differences. According to GS-PEQ, TM users received adequate information about their diagnosis or afflictions (p = .035) and the treatment was better adapted to their situation (p = .009). Both groups reported negative experiences regarding their involvement in their treatment decisions, the waiting time before admission, and perceived a low-benefit. According to HCCQ, the TM group experienced poorer consultation management by the healthcare provider (p = .041). Participants reported positive overall communication experiences. The study provides insights into the experiences and communication in PM monitoring services as well as specific areas where users reported negative experiences such as the consultation management by clinicians. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02234245.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Catalán-Matamoros et al. (2021) studied Pacemaker implantation (n=55). Telemonitoring vs. Conventional monitoring was evaluated on Adequate information about diagnosis/afflictions (GS-PEQ Question 3) (r 0.314, 95% CI 0.008-0.566, p=0.035). Telemonitoring of pacemakers over five years improved patients' perception of receiving adequate information and treatment adaptability compared to conventional monitoring.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: