A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients’ experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up

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.

Patients’ Experiences and Communication with Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology

“…The general positive experience found in our study in both follow-up groups is confirmed and in line with previous studies that analyzed experiences with telehealth devices in cardiology [ 29 , 30 ] or primary care [ 31 , 32 ], given that for the patients, remote communication with the health professionals was a medium that is flexible, convenient, easy to use, and acceptable for managing their health together. Although this study is the first that explores the experiences of the patients and the communication with health providers in both types of follow-up (TD vs. F-F/D), other studies have shown a high satisfaction with both follow-up modalities [ 18 , 19 , 21 , 33 , 34 ].…”

Comparation of quality of life in Chinese patients undergoing leadless versus conventional pacemaker implantation

“…The data showed a general improvement in QoL from baseline to 3 months regardless of the pacemaker implanted, and there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the 3‐month score compared with baseline. This is consistent with previous research on QoL after C‐PM implantation, which showed a general improvement in both physical and mental health of patients 6,7,15–20 . A recent study by Fleur et al 21 showed a significant improvement in patients' QoL and high patient satisfaction after L‐PM implantation.…”

“…This is consistent with previous research on QoL after C‐PM implantation, which showed a general improvement in both physical and mental health of patients. 6 , 7 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 A recent study by Fleur et al 21 showed a significant improvement in patients' QoL and high patient satisfaction after L‐PM implantation. In our study shows that although the implantation of pacemakers can improve QoL in both groups, the numerical changes in the L‐PM group are more obvious, and there are significant differences in PF, RP, PCS, MH, and MCS between the two groups are more obvious.…”