Dataset Information

Barriers to Use of Remote Monitoring Technologies Used to Support Patients With COVID-19: Rapid Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst for the development and adoption of a broad range of remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) in health care delivery. It is important to demonstrate how these technologies were implemented during the early stages of this pandemic to identify their application and barriers to adoption, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Objective

The purpose of this knowledge synthesis was to present the range of RMTs used in delivering care to patients with COVID-19 and to identify perceived benefits of and barriers to their use. The review placed a special emphasis on health equity considerations.

Methods

A rapid review of published research was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and QxMD for records published from the inception of COVID-19 (December 2019) to July 6, 2020. Synthesis involved content analysis of reported benefits of and barriers to the use of RMTs when delivering health care to patients with COVID-19, in addition to health equity considerations.

Results

Of 491 records identified, 48 publications that described 35 distinct RMTs were included in this review. RMTs included use of existing technologies (eg, videoconferencing) and development of new ones that have COVID-19-specific applications. Content analysis of perceived benefits generated 34 distinct codes describing advantages of RMTs, mapped to 10 themes overall. Further, 52 distinct codes describing barriers to use of RMTs were mapped to 18 themes. Prominent themes associated with perceived benefits included a lower burden of care (eg, for hospitals, health care practitioners; 28 records), reduced infection risk (n=33), and support for vulnerable populations (n=14). Prominent themes reflecting barriers to use of RMTs included equity-related barriers (eg, affordability of technology for users, poor internet connectivity, poor health literacy; n=16), the need for quality "best practice" guidelines for use of RMTs in clinical care (n=12), and the need for additional resources to develop and support new technologies (n=11). Overall, 23 of 48 records commented on equity characteristics that stratify health opportunities and outcomes, including general characteristics that vary over time (eg, age, comorbidities; n=17), place of residence (n=11), and socioeconomic status (n=7).

Conclusions

Results of this rapid review highlight the breadth of RMTs being used to monitor and inform treatment of COVID-19, the potential benefits of using these technologies, and existing barriers to their use. Results can be used to prioritize further efforts in the implementation of RMTs (eg, developing "best practice" guidelines for use of RMTs and generating strategies to improve equitable access for marginalized populations).

SUBMITTER: Houlding E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059785 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 has ever-increasing attributed deaths. Vital sign trends are routinely used to monitor patients with changes in these parameters preceding an adverse event. Wearable sensors can measure vital signs continuously and remotely, outside of hospital facilities, recognising early clinical deterioration. We aim to determine the feasibility & acceptability of remote monitoring systems for quarantined individuals in a hotel suspected of COVID-19.MethodsA pilot, proof-of-concept, feasibility trial was conducted in engineered hotels near London airports (May-June 2020). Individuals arriving to London with mild suspected COVID-19 symptoms requiring quarantine, as recommended by Public Health England, or healthcare professionals with COVID-19 symptoms unable to isolate at home were eligible. The SensiumVitals™ patch, measuring temperature, heart & respiratory rates, was applied on arrival for the duration of their stay. Alerts were generated when pre-established thresholds were breeched; trained nursing staff could consequently intervene.ResultsFourteen individuals (M = 7, F = 7) were recruited; the mean age was 34.9 (SD 11) years. Mean length of stay was 3 (SD 1.8) days. In total, 10 vital alerts were generated across 4 participants, resulting in telephone contact, reassurance, or adjustment of the sensor. No individuals required hospitalisation or virtual general practitioner review.DiscussionThis proof-of-concept trial demonstrated the feasibility of a rapidly implemented model of healthcare delivery through remote monitoring during a pandemic at a hotel, acting as an extension to a healthcare trust. Benefits included reduced viral exposure to healthcare staff, with recognition of clinical deterioration through ambulatory, continuous, remote monitoring using a discrete wearable sensor.ConclusionRemote monitoring systems can be applied to hotels to deliver healthcare safely in individuals suspected of COVID-19. Further work is required to evaluate this model on a larger scale.Trial registrationClinical trials registration information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04337489 (07/04/2020).

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health (eHealth) is a multidisciplinary and rapidly evolving field, and thus requires research focused on knowledge accumulation, curation, and translation. Cardiovascular diseases constitute a global health care crisis in which eHealth can provide novel solutions to improve the efficiency and reach of self-management support for patients where they most need it: their homes and communities. A holistic understanding of eHealth projects focused on such case is required to bridge the multidisciplinary gap formed by the wide range of aims and approaches taken by the various disciplines involved.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this review is to facilitate a holistic interpretation of eHealth projects aimed at providing self-management support of cardiovascular diseases in the natural setting of patients, thus priming the use of remote monitoring technologies. The review aims to synthesize the operationalization of frameworks, models, and theories applied to the research and development process of eHealth.MethodsWe will use Noblit and Hare's metaethnography approach to review and synthesize researchers' and practitioners' reports on how they applied frameworks, models, and theories in their projects. We will systematically search the literature in 7 databases: Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, and the Cochrane Library. We will thoroughly read and code selected studies to extract both raw and contextual data for the synthesis. The relation of the studies will be determined according to the elements of the frameworks, models, or theories the studies applied. We will translate these elements between each other and intend to synthesize holistic principles for eHealth development for the case at hand.ResultsThe search strategy has been completed, data extraction is almost finalized, and the first synthesis approaches are underway. The search yielded 1224 citations and, after we applied the selection criteria, 17 articles remained. We expect to submit the final results for publication in 2019.ConclusionsThis review is important because it aims to create a holistic understanding of a multidisciplinary topic at the crossroads of eHealth, cardiovascular diseases, and self-management. The value of metaethnography in contrast to other systematic review methods is that its synthesis approach seeks to generate a new understanding of a topic, while preserving the social and theoretical contexts in which findings emerge. Our results will show how useful this method can be in bridging the multidisciplinary gap of eHealth research and development, to inform and advance the importance of holistic approaches, while showcasing this approach for the case of self-management in cardiovascular diseases.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42018104397; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php? RecordID=104397 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75H1kP1Mm).International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/13334.

Project description:ImportanceHealth care systems have implemented remote patient monitoring (RPM) programs to manage patients with COVID-19 at home, but the associations between participation and outcomes or resource utilization are unclear.ObjectiveTo assess whether an RPM program for COVID-19 is associated with lower or higher likelihood of hospitalization and whether patients who are admitted present earlier or later for hospital care.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, observational, cohort study of RPM was performed at Froedtert & Medical College of Wisconsin Health Network, an academic health system in southeastern Wisconsin. Participants included patients with internal primary care physicians and a positive SARS-CoV-2 test in the ambulatory setting between March 30, 2020, and December 15, 2020. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2021, to February 2, 2022.ExposuresActivation of RPM program.Main outcomes and measuresHospitalizations within 2 to 14 days of a positive test. Inverse propensity score weighting was used to account for differences between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed looking at usage of the RPM among patients who activated the program.ResultsA total of 10 660 COVID-19-positive ambulatory patients were eligible, and 9378 (88.0%) had email or mobile numbers on file and were invited into the RPM program; the mean (SD) age was 46.9 (16.3) years and 5448 patients (58.1%) were women. Patients who activated monitoring (5364 patients [57.2%]) had a mean (SD) of 35.3 (33.0) check-ins and a mean (SD) of 1.27 (2.79) (median [IQR], 0 [0-1]) free-text comments. A total of 878 patients (16.4%) experienced at least 1 alert; 128 of 5364 activated patients (2.4%) and 158 of 4014 inactivated patients (3.9%) were hospitalized (χ21 = 18.65; P < .001). In weighted regression analysis, activation of RPM was associated with a lower odds of hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001) adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and time period. Monitored patients had a longer mean (SD) time between test and hospitalization (6.67 [3.21] days vs 5.24 [3.03] days), a shorter length of stay (4.44 [4.43] days vs 7.14 [8.63] days), and less intensive care use (15 patients [0.3%] vs 44 patients [1.1%]).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that activation of an RPM program is associated with lower hospitalization, intensive care use, and length of stay among patients with COVID-19.