Patient perceptions, opinions and satisfaction of telehealth with remote blood pressure monitoring postpartum

Abstract

Background Our aim was to conduct a post participation survey of respondent experiences with in-home remote patient monitoring via telehealth for blood pressure monitoring of women with postpartum hypertension. We hypothesized that the in-home remote patient monitoring application will be implemented with strong fidelity and have positive patient acceptability. Methods This analysis was a planned secondary analysis of a non-randomized controlled trial of telehealth with remote blood pressure patient monitoring for postpartum hypertension compared to standard outpatient monitoring in women with a hypertension-related diagnosis during pregnancy. In collaboration with survey experts, we developed a 41-item web-based survey to assess 1) perception of quality of care received, 2) ease of use/ease to learn the telehealth program, 3) effective orientation of equipment, 4) level of perceived security/privacy utilizing telehealth and 5) problems encountered. The survey included multiple question formats including Likert scale responses, dichotomous Yes/No responses, and free text. We performed a descriptive analysis on all responses and then performed regression analysis on a subset of questions most relevant to the domains of interest. The qualitative data collected through open ended responses was analyzed to determine relevant categories. Intervention participants who completed the study received the survey at the 6-week study endpoint. Results Sixty six percent of respondents completed the survey. The majority of women found the technology fit easily into their lifestyle. Privacy concerns were minimal and factors that influenced this included age, BMI, marital status, and readmissions. 95% of women preferred remote care for postpartum follow-up, in which hypertensive type, medication use and ethnicity were found to be significant factors in influencing location of follow-up. Most women were satisfied with the devices, but rates varied by hypertensive type, infant discharge rates and BMI. Conclusions Postpartum women perceived the telehealth remote intervention was a safe, easy to use method that represented an acceptable burden of care and an overall satisfying method for postpartum blood pressure monitoring. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identification number: NCT03111095 Date of registration: April 12, 2017.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: definition, management, and out-of-office blood pressure measurement

“…In a survey of 128 patients conducted in the United States, postpartum women perceived a telehealth technology remote intervention as a safe and easy-to-use method, with an acceptable burden of care and an overall satisfactory method of monitoring blood pressure in the postpartum period [ 116 ]. A survey conducted in Belgium reported that 80% of midwives and 67% of obstetricians who used remote blood pressure monitoring in pregnancy perceived digital technologies as an important component of prenatal monitoring [ 117 ].…”

Learning from COVID-19 related trial adaptations to inform efficient trial design—a sequential mixed methods study

“…The remote collection of blood pressures has been discussed as being acceptable for patients receiving clinical care (e.g. outside of a research setting), in populations such as pregnant or recently pregnant women, and individuals with heart failure [40][41][42]. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding acceptability within clinical trials and older adults.…”

A nurse practitioner–led telehealth protocol to improve diabetes outcomes in primary care

“…Pandemic-related changes have suggested TH to be a valuable tool to support self-management of chronic conditions like diabetes (Kirby et al, 2021;Ramaswamy, 2020;Thomas et al, 2021). A prepandemic review of the literature suggested that TH visits were more effective when combined with IP visits to build rapport and connectivity, which lays the foundation for strong providerpatient relationship (Dixon et al, 2020;Su et al, 2016).…”