A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up
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 b...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-12, Vol.16 (12), p.e0261158-e0261158 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0261158 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 12 |
| container_start_page | e0261158 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel Lopez-Villegas, Antonio Leal Costa, Cesar Bautista-Mesa, Rafael Robles-Musso, Emilio Rocamora Perez, Patricia Lopez-Liria, Remedios |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0261158 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2613258426</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A687760080</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b49403a014de411b84a9adad05ccab6a</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A687760080</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3cde4abc764f8794f4e3ebb52b13c875a2f0cbdebfe81947ce2bfd743a745ca53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk9tu1DAURSMEoqXwBwgiIXF5mMGOndsL0qjiUqlSJW6v1olzPHVx7GA7peUv-GOc6bTqoD6gSIlzsva2veOTZU8pWVJW07dnbvIWzHJ0FpekqCgtm3vZPm1ZsagKwu7fGu9lj0I4I6RkTVU9zPYYbzltCd_P_qxy6-zCg-3doH9jn0ujrZZg8uj1fHc5XsCgLeYjRI02hlepMqJPY4khT8pcumGYZlXUzub95LVd5xENDs7q6DavTiUDiQP8QJ9UKqLPlT7H_BIhFZQzxv1aTOPj7IECE_DJ9nmQffvw_uvhp8Xxycejw9XxQlZtERdM9sihk3XFVVO3XHFk2HVl0VEmm7qEQhHZ9dgpbGjLa4lFp_qaM6h5KaFkB9nzK9_RuCC2aQaRgmRF2fCiSsTRFdE7OBOj1wP4S-FAi03B-bUAH7U0KLoUKGFAKE-rorRrOLTQQ09KKaGrIHm92842dQP2MuXoweyY7n6x-lSs3bloqrZtmyIZvN4aePdzwhDFoINEY8Cimzbr5gUjVTmjL_5B797dllpD2oC2yqV55WwqVlVT1xUhDUnU8g4qXT0OWqajp3Sq7wje7AgSE_EirmEKQRx9-fz_7Mn3XfblLfYUwcTT4Mw0n7iwC_IrUHoXgkd1EzIlYu6c6zTE3Dli2zlJ9uz2D7oRXbcK-wvUxRgB</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2613258426</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Public Library of Science</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>EZB*</source><creator>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel ; Lopez-Villegas, Antonio ; Leal Costa, Cesar ; Bautista-Mesa, Rafael ; Robles-Musso, Emilio ; Rocamora Perez, Patricia ; Lopez-Liria, Remedios</creator><contributor>Kielbassa, Andrej M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel ; Lopez-Villegas, Antonio ; Leal Costa, Cesar ; Bautista-Mesa, Rafael ; Robles-Musso, Emilio ; Rocamora Perez, Patricia ; Lopez-Liria, Remedios ; Kielbassa, Andrej M.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261158</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34941904</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adaptation, Physiological - physiology ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cardiac arrhythmia ; Clinical trials ; Communication ; Comparative analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Engineering and Technology ; Evaluation ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Health aspects ; Health care ; Health services ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Male ; Medical equipment ; Medical personnel ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Nursing ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Pacemaker, Artificial (Heart) ; Pacemakers ; Patient monitoring ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients ; People and Places ; Physical therapy ; Physicians ; Physiological aspects ; Polls & surveys ; Practice ; Questionnaires ; Remote control ; Remote monitoring ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Technology application ; Telemedicine ; Telemedicine - methods ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-12, Vol.16 (12), p.e0261158-e0261158</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Catalan-Matamoros et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Catalan-Matamoros et al 2021 Catalan-Matamoros et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3cde4abc764f8794f4e3ebb52b13c875a2f0cbdebfe81947ce2bfd743a745ca53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3cde4abc764f8794f4e3ebb52b13c875a2f0cbdebfe81947ce2bfd743a745ca53</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0662-2487 ; 0000-0002-7711-3877 ; 0000-0003-0815-5421</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8699982/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8699982/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2919,23857,27915,27916,53782,53784,79361,79362</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34941904$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Kielbassa, Andrej M.</contributor><creatorcontrib>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Villegas, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leal Costa, Cesar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bautista-Mesa, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robles-Musso, Emilio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocamora Perez, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Liria, Remedios</creatorcontrib><title>A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adaptation, Physiological - physiology</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cardiac arrhythmia</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Nursing</subject><subject>Pacemaker, Artificial</subject><subject>Pacemaker, Artificial (Heart)</subject><subject>Pacemakers</subject><subject>Patient monitoring</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Physiological aspects</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Practice</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Remote control</subject><subject>Remote monitoring</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Technology application</subject><subject>Telemedicine</subject><subject>Telemedicine - methods</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk9tu1DAURSMEoqXwBwgiIXF5mMGOndsL0qjiUqlSJW6v1olzPHVx7GA7peUv-GOc6bTqoD6gSIlzsva2veOTZU8pWVJW07dnbvIWzHJ0FpekqCgtm3vZPm1ZsagKwu7fGu9lj0I4I6RkTVU9zPYYbzltCd_P_qxy6-zCg-3doH9jn0ujrZZg8uj1fHc5XsCgLeYjRI02hlepMqJPY4khT8pcumGYZlXUzub95LVd5xENDs7q6DavTiUDiQP8QJ9UKqLPlT7H_BIhFZQzxv1aTOPj7IECE_DJ9nmQffvw_uvhp8Xxycejw9XxQlZtERdM9sihk3XFVVO3XHFk2HVl0VEmm7qEQhHZ9dgpbGjLa4lFp_qaM6h5KaFkB9nzK9_RuCC2aQaRgmRF2fCiSsTRFdE7OBOj1wP4S-FAi03B-bUAH7U0KLoUKGFAKE-rorRrOLTQQ09KKaGrIHm92842dQP2MuXoweyY7n6x-lSs3bloqrZtmyIZvN4aePdzwhDFoINEY8Cimzbr5gUjVTmjL_5B797dllpD2oC2yqV55WwqVlVT1xUhDUnU8g4qXT0OWqajp3Sq7wje7AgSE_EirmEKQRx9-fz_7Mn3XfblLfYUwcTT4Mw0n7iwC_IrUHoXgkd1EzIlYu6c6zTE3Dli2zlJ9uz2D7oRXbcK-wvUxRgB</recordid><startdate>20211223</startdate><enddate>20211223</enddate><creator>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel</creator><creator>Lopez-Villegas, Antonio</creator><creator>Leal Costa, Cesar</creator><creator>Bautista-Mesa, Rafael</creator><creator>Robles-Musso, Emilio</creator><creator>Rocamora Perez, Patricia</creator><creator>Lopez-Liria, Remedios</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0662-2487</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-3877</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-5421</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20211223</creationdate><title>A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up</title><author>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel ; Lopez-Villegas, Antonio ; Leal Costa, Cesar ; Bautista-Mesa, Rafael ; Robles-Musso, Emilio ; Rocamora Perez, Patricia ; Lopez-Liria, Remedios</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-3cde4abc764f8794f4e3ebb52b13c875a2f0cbdebfe81947ce2bfd743a745ca53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adaptation, Physiological - physiology</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cardiac arrhythmia</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Nursing</topic><topic>Pacemaker, Artificial</topic><topic>Pacemaker, Artificial (Heart)</topic><topic>Pacemakers</topic><topic>Patient monitoring</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Physiological aspects</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Practice</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Remote control</topic><topic>Remote monitoring</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Technology application</topic><topic>Telemedicine</topic><topic>Telemedicine - methods</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Villegas, Antonio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leal Costa, Cesar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bautista-Mesa, Rafael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robles-Musso, Emilio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocamora Perez, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lopez-Liria, Remedios</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database (1962 - current)</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>https://resources.nclive.org/materials</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Biological Sciences</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel</au><au>Lopez-Villegas, Antonio</au><au>Leal Costa, Cesar</au><au>Bautista-Mesa, Rafael</au><au>Robles-Musso, Emilio</au><au>Rocamora Perez, Patricia</au><au>Lopez-Liria, Remedios</au><au>Kielbassa, Andrej M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-12-23</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>e0261158</spage><epage>e0261158</epage><pages>e0261158-e0261158</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>34941904</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0261158</doi><tpages>e0261158</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0662-2487</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-3877</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0815-5421</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-12, Vol.16 (12), p.e0261158-e0261158 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2613258426 |
| source | MEDLINE; Public Library of Science; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; EZB* |
| subjects | Adaptation, Physiological - physiology Aged, 80 and over Biology and Life Sciences Cardiac arrhythmia Clinical trials Communication Comparative analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis Engineering and Technology Evaluation Female Follow-Up Studies Health aspects Health care Health services Hospitals Humans Male Medical equipment Medical personnel Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Nursing Pacemaker, Artificial Pacemaker, Artificial (Heart) Pacemakers Patient monitoring Patient Satisfaction Patients People and Places Physical therapy Physicians Physiological aspects Polls & surveys Practice Questionnaires Remote control Remote monitoring Research and Analysis Methods Technology application Telemedicine Telemedicine - methods Transplants & implants |
| title | A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients' experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T19%3A44%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20non-randomized%20clinical%20trial%20to%20examine%20patients'%20experiences%20and%20communication%20during%20telemonitoring%20of%20pacemakers%20after%20five%20years%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Catalan-Matamoros,%20Daniel&rft.date=2021-12-23&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e0261158&rft.epage=e0261158&rft.pages=e0261158-e0261158&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0261158&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA687760080%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2613258426&rft_id=info:pmid/34941904&rft_galeid=A687760080&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b49403a014de411b84a9adad05ccab6a&rfr_iscdi=true |