As telehealth plays an even greater role in global health care delivery, it will be increasingly important to develop a strong evidence base of successful, innovative telehealth solutions that can lead to scalable and sustainable telehealth programs. This paper has two aims: (1) to describe the challenges of promoting telehealth implementation to advance adoption and (2) to present a global research agenda for personalized telehealth within chronic disease management. Using evidence from the United States and the European Union, this paper provides a global overview of the current state of telehealth services and benefits, presents fundamental principles that must be addressed to advance the status quo, and provides a framework for current and future research initiatives within telehealth for personalized care, treatment, and prevention. A broad, multinational research agenda can provide a uniform framework for identifying and rapidly replicating best practices, while concurrently fostering global collaboration in the development and rigorous testing of new and emerging telehealth technologies. In this paper, the members of the Transatlantic Telehealth Research Network offer a 12-point research agenda for future telehealth applications within chronic disease management.

We studied whether preventive home monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) could reduce the frequency of hospital admissions and lower the cost of hospitalization. Patients were recruited from a health centre, general practitioner (GP) or the pulmonary hospital ward. They were randomized to usual care or tele-rehabilitation with a telehealth monitoring device installed in their home for four months. A total of 111 patients were suitable for inclusion and consented to be randomized: 60 patients were allocated to intervention and three were lost to follow-up. In the control group 51 patients were allocated to usual care and three patients were lost to follow-up. In the tele-rehabilitation group, the mean hospital admission rate was 0.49 per patient per 10 months compared to the control group rate of 1.17; this difference was significant (P = 0.041). The mean cost of admissions was €3461 per patient in the intervention group and €4576 in the control group; this difference was not significant. The Kaplan-Meier estimates for time to hospital admission were longer for the intervention group than the controls, but the difference was not significant. Future work requires large-scale studies of prolonged home monitoring with more extended follow-up.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation can reduce mortality of patients with cardiovascular disease, but a frequently low participation rate in rehabilitation programs has been found globally. The objective of the Teledialog study was to assess the cost-utility (CU) of a cardiac telerehabilitation (CTR) program. The aim of the intervention was to increase the patients' participation in the CTR program. At discharge, an individualized 3-month rehabilitation plan was formulated for each patient. At home, the patients measured their own blood pressure, pulse, weight, and steps taken for 3 months. Materials and Methods: The analysis was carried out together with a randomized controlled trial with 151 patients during 2012–2014. Costs of the intervention were estimated with a health sector perspective following international guidelines for CU. Quality of life was assessed using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey. Results: The rehabilitation activities were approximately the same in the two groups, but the number of contacts with the physiotherapist was higher among the intervention group. The mean total cost per patient was €1,700 higher in the intervention group. The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gain was higher in the intervention group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The incremental CU ratio was more than €400,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions: Even though the rehabilitation activities increased, the program does not appear to be cost-effective. The intervention itself was not costly (less than €500), and increasing the number of patients may show reduced costs of the devices and make the CTR more cost-effective. Telerehabilitation can increase participation, but the intervention, in its current form, does not appear to be cost-effective.

Background Implementation of cardiac rehabilitation has not been optimal, with patient participation rates below 50%. Factors that contribute to cardiac patients’ lack of participation in rehabilitation programs are patient motivation, logistical difficulties in getting to the rehabilitation facilities, lack of psychosocial elements, and individualization of activities in the rehabilitation programs. Telerehabilitation has been proposed as a new way to address the challenge of engaging and motivating cardiac patients and their partners to participate in rehabilitation. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of cardiac patients and their partners of participating in the Teledialog Telerehabilitation Program (TTP). The Teledialog program consisted of a digital rehabilitation plan, transmission of health data from patient’s home to hospital and health care center, and an interactive Web portal with information and training videos. Methods This case study used a theoretical approach combining the “community of practice” approach and self-determination theory. A triangulation of data collection techniques was used, including documents, participant observation (72 hours), and qualitative interviews with cardiac patients and their partners enrolled in the telerehabilitation group. A total of 14 cardiac patients, 12 patient spouses/partners, and 1 son participated in the study. The participants were interviewed at enrollment in the telerehabilitation program and after 12 weeks of participation in the program. Interview data were analyzed using NVivo 11.0. Results Patients and their partners found the Web portal ActiveHeart.dk and the electronic rehabilitation (e-rehabilitation) plan to be helpful tools for health education, coordinating rehabilitation goals, creating an overview of the data, and ensuring continuity in the rehabilitation process. The patients felt that the TTP treated them as individuals, gave them a sense of autonomy, and provided enhanced relatedness to health care professionals and partners and a sense of competence as active participants in their own rehabilitation process. Some patients missed being part of a community of practice with other cardiac patients and did not use the Web forum. Patients’ partners found that the telerehabilitation program gave them a sense of security and helped them balance their involvement as a partner to the patient and not push the patient too hard. Conclusions Cardiac patients and their partners found telerehabilitation technologies a useful digital toolbox in the rehabilitation process. Telerehabilitation motivated the patients to integrate rehabilitation activities into their work schedule and everyday life and made them feel like unique individuals. Participating in the Teledialog Telerehabilitation Program might not be a suitable strategy for all cardiac patients. Being a patient’s partner in the telerehabilit...

Telerehabilitation (TR) has gained attention as a promising rehabilitation format. Our study examined how patients responded to TR and whether it provided adequate support for their lifestyle changes and self-care efforts when compared to conventional rehabilitation (CR). Cardiac patients (n = 136) were randomly assigned to a TR or CR group. The TR group was provided with relevant health care technology for a period of three months, and both groups filled in questionnaires on their motivation for lifestyle changes and self-care psychological distress, and quality of life at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months. Patients in both groups were found to be equally motivated for lifestyle changes and self-care (p < 0.05) and they experienced similar levels of psychological distress and quality of life. TR is comparable to conventional rehabilitation in motivating patients, preventing psychological distress and improving quality of life. Although we observed an initial increase in autonomous motivation in the telerehabilitation group, this positive difference in motivation does not last over time. As such, neither rehabilitation format seems able to ensure long-term motivation. Therefore, TR may serve as a viable replacement for conventional rehabilitation when considered relevant. Further research is needed to enhance long-term motivation, and maybe telerehabilitation can help to achieve this.