Search

Abstract Due to rapid technological advancements, remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology has gained traction in recent years. While the effects of specific RPM interventions are known, few published reviews examine RPM in the context of care transitions from an inpatient hospital setting to a home environment. In this systematic review, we addressed this gap by examining the impacts of RPM interventions on patient safety, adherence, clinical and quality of life outcomes and cost-related outcomes during care transition from inpatient care to a home setting. We searched five academic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and SCOPUS), screened 2606 articles, and included 29 studies from 16 countries. These studies examined seven types of RPM interventions (communication tools, computer-based systems, smartphone applications, web portals, augmented clinical devices with monitoring capabilities, wearables and standard clinical tools for intermittent monitoring). RPM interventions demonstrated positive outcomes in patient safety and adherence. RPM interventions also improved patients’ mobility and functional statuses, but the impact on other clinical and quality-of-life measures, such as physical and mental health symptoms, remains inconclusive. In terms of cost-related outcomes, there was a clear downward trend in the risks of hospital admission/readmission, length of stay, number of outpatient visits and non-hospitalisation costs. Future research should explore whether incorporating intervention components with a strong human element alongside the deployment of technology enhances the effectiveness of RPM. The review highlights the need for more economic evaluations and implementation studies that shed light on the facilitators and barriers to adopting RPM interventions in different care settings.

BackgroundThe co-design of health technology enables patient-centeredness and can help reduce barriers to technology use. ObjectiveThe study objectives were to identify what remote patient monitoring (RPM) technology has been co-designed for inpatients and how effective it is, to identify and describe the co-design approaches used to develop RPM technologies and in which contexts they emerge, and to identify and describe barriers and facilitators of the co-design process. MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of co-designed RPM technologies for inpatients or for the immediate postdischarge period and assessed (1) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (2) the co-design approaches used, and (3) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process. Eligible records included those involving stakeholders co-designing RPM technology for use in the inpatient setting or during the immediate postdischarge period. Searches were limited to the English language within the last 10 years. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) in April 2023. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies and qualitative research. Findings are presented narratively. ResultsWe screened 3334 reports, and 17 projects met the eligibility criteria. Interventions were designed for pre- and postsurgical monitoring (n=6), intensive care monitoring (n=2), posttransplant monitoring (n=3), rehabilitation (n=4), acute inpatients (n=1), and postpartum care (n=1). No projects evaluated the efficacy of their co-designed RPM technology. Three pilot studies reported clinical outcomes; their risk of bias was low to moderate. Pilot evaluations (11/17) also focused on nonclinical outcomes such as usability, usefulness, feasibility, and satisfaction. Common co-design approaches included needs assessment or ideation (16/17), prototyping (15/17), and pilot testing (11/17). The most commonly reported challenge to the co-design process was the generalizability of findings, closely followed by time and resource constraints and participant bias. Stakeholders’ perceived value was the most frequently reported enabler of co-design. Other enablers included continued stakeholder engagement and methodological factors (ie, the use of flexible mixed method approaches and prototyping). ConclusionsCo-design methods can help enhance interventions’ relevance, usability, and adoption. While included studies measured usability, satisfaction, and acceptability—critical factors for successful implementation and uptake—we could not determine the clinical effectiveness of co-designed RPM technologies. A stronger commitment to clinical evaluation is needed. Studies’ use of diverse co-design approaches can foster stakeholder inclusivity, but greater standardization in co-design terminology is needed to improve the quality and consistency of co-design research.