Why the study?
Noncompliance threatens the effectiveness of telemonitoring in heart failure, raising questions about whether patients less likely or unable to comply are represented in interventional studies.
Are compliance rates reported in interventional telemonitoring studies representative of the wider heart failure population?
Are compliance rates reported in interventional telemonitoring studies representative of the wider heart failure population?
Current telemonitoring studies in heart failure likely overestimate compliance due to selection bias, highlighting the need for 'low compliance' solutions and more representative trial cohorts.
Selection bias may inflate telemonitoring compliance estimates in heart failure; leaves open true rates and efficacy in unselected populations.
Introduction: Telemonitoring technologies enable medical teams to remotely manage outpatients with heart failure (HF) and reduce their risk of HF-related hospitalizations. However, noncompliance threatens the effectiveness of these approaches. This review aims to identify whether patients who are less likely or unable to comply with telemonitoring and their instructions for use are represented by interventional telemonitoring studies, and if their exclusion from studies is resulting in study findings not representative of clinical reality. Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to identify interventional telemonitoring studies reporting compliance rates for HF patients. A search of PubMed and Medline databases identified eligible studies published between January 2000 and June 2021. Results : Twenty-five (n = 25) eligible studies with an interventional study design were identified. Reported compliance with telemonitoring ranged between 37% and 98.5%; however, 72% of studies reported good or medium compliance. A majority (76%) of studies had exclusion/inclusion criteria favoring the enrollment of patients who may be more likely to comply with telemonitoring and their instructions for use. Forty percent of studies had a sample with a mean or median age of <65 years. Participants were more likely to be male (majority in 92% of studies) and white (majority in 78% of studies that reported ethnicity). Conclusion: Compliance rates reported by current studies are unlikely to be generalizable to the wider HF population, particularly patients who are less likely or unable to comply with telemonitoring. Studies are therefore likely overestimating compliance rates. Future innovation should focus on designing “low compliance” solutions that require minimal engagement from users and future studies should aim to recruit a more generalizable cohort of patients. To achieve a more standardized metric of compliance, studies should report compliance (however defined) achieved by the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of all patients enrolled.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Berry et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: