Why the study?
Remote monitoring has emerged as a strategy to reduce adverse events and improve patient satisfaction, but the effectiveness and patient perceptions regarding non-invasive telemonitoring on quality of life in chronic heart failure needed evaluation.
Does non-invasive telemonitoring improve quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure in the community?
Does non-invasive telemonitoring improve quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure in the community?
This article describes the development of a mixed-methods systematic review protocol to evaluate the impact of non-invasive telemonitoring on quality of life in heart failure patients.
May support remote monitoring adoption for chronic heart disease; extends evidence with first mixed-methods QoL synthesis.
Advances in technology and the social distancing measures implemented in 2020–21 have put remote monitoring and digital health initiatives in the limelight as promising strategies to reduce adverse events associated with chronic disease, while enhancing patient satisfaction. This article is the first in a two-part series, reporting on a mixed-methods systematic review, which sought to evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive remote monitoring on quality of life among patients with chronic heart failure. As quality of life is a subjective concept regarding how individuals perceive their health status and satisfaction with life, a mixed-methods approach was deemed appropriate. The review questions were: is telemonitoring effective in improving quality of life among patients with chronic heart failure in the community, and how do these patients perceive and experience telemonitoring in terms of their quality of life? The mixed-methods review follows a convergent segregated approach, drawing evidence-based and credible recommendations for clinical practice and policy decision making. This article will describe the development of the review protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tavares et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: