UNSTRUCTURED Patient and staff experience are vital factors to consider in the evaluation of Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) interventions. However, the current landscape of patient and staff experience measuring in RPM suffers from a lack of methodological standardization, affecting the quality of both primary and secondary research in this domain. In this research, we aim to obtain a comprehensive set of experience constructs and corresponding instruments used in contemporary RPM research and to propose an initial set of guidelines for improving methodological standardization in this domain. A systematic review is conducted on recent articles reporting instances of patient or staff experience measuring in the RPM domain. The obtained corpus of data is explored and structured through correspondence analysis, a multivariate statistical technique. The systematic review shows that the research landscape has seen sizeable growth in the past years, that it is affected by a relative lack of focus on the experience of staff, and that the overall corpus of collected measures can be organized into four main categories (service-system-related experience measures; care-related experience measures; usage and adherence-related experience measures; and health outcomes-related experience measures). In light of the collected findings, we provide a set of six actionable recommendations to RPM patient and staff experience evaluators, both in terms of what to measure and how to measure it. Overall, we suggest RPM researchers and practitioners develop integrated, interdisciplinary data strategies for continuous RPM evaluation.

Evidence-based practices play an essential role in the development of eHealth systems. Prior research has investigated the challenge of shared understanding between professionals from the fields of health sciences and design and has highlighted the need for effective alignment of development and research practices in eHealth. However, there is a limited understanding of epistemological differences between these fields and how professionals conceptualise evidence. In this paper, we investigate how healthcare and design professionals think about evidence and how they implement evidence practices in their work. We interviewed eight professionals and used reflexive thematic analysis to identify the challenges and strategies associated with their evidence practices. Our results identify five shared evidence practices between healthcare and design professionals: stakeholder-driven, process-driven, problem-driven, effect-driven, and solution-driven. These five evidence practices indicate opportunities for closer alignment of development and research practices among healthcare and design professionals and offer a basis to create a shared understanding of evidence between both fields.