Barriers and Facilitators Associated With Remote Monitoring Adherence Among Veterans With Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Qualitative Cross-Sectional Study
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The Heart Rhythm Society strongly recommends remote monitoring (RM) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) because of the clinical outcome benefits to patients. However, many patients do not adhere to RM and, thus, do not achieve these benefits. There has been limited study of patient-level barriers and facilitators to RM adherence; understanding patient perspectives is essential to developing solutions to improve adherence. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify barriers and facilitators associated with adherence to RM among veterans with CIEDs followed by the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We interviewed 40 veterans with CIEDs regarding their experiences with RM. Veterans were stratified into 3 groups based on their adherence to scheduled RM transmissions over the past 2 years: 6 fully adherent (≥95%), 25 partially adherent (≥65% but <95%), and 9 nonadherent (<65%). As the focus was to understand challenges with RM adherence, partially adherent and nonadherent veterans were preferentially weighted for selection. Veterans were mailed a letter stating they would be called to understand their experiences and perspectives of RM and possible barriers, and then contacted beginning 1 week after the letter was mailed. Interviews were structured (some questions allowing for open-ended responses to dive deeper into themes) and focused on 4 predetermined domains: knowledge of RM, satisfaction with RM, reasons for nonadherence, and preferences for health care engagement. RESULTS: Of the 44 veterans contacted, 40 (91%) agreed to participate. The mean veteran age was 75.3 (SD 7.6) years, and 98% (39/40) were men. Veterans had been implanted with their current CIED for an average of 4.4 (SD 2.8) years. A total of 58% (23/40) of veterans recalled a discussion of home monitoring, and 45% (18/40) reported a good understanding of RM; however, when asked to describe RM, their understanding was sometimes incomplete or not correct. Among the 31 fully or partially adherent veterans, nearly all were satisfied with RM. Approximately one-third recalled ever being told the results of a remote transmission. Among partially or nonadherent veterans, only one-fourth reported being contacted by a Department of Veterans Affairs health care professional regarding not having sent a remote transmission; among those who had troubleshooted to ensure they could send remote transmissions, they often relied on the CIED manufacturer for help (this experience was nearly always positive). Most nonadherent veterans felt more comfortable engaging in RM if they received more information or education. Most veterans were interested in being notified of a successful remote transmission and learning the results of their remote transmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with CIEDs often had limited knowledge about RM and did not recall being contacted about nonadherence. When they were contacted and troubleshooted, the experience was positive. These findings provide opportunities to optimize strategies for educating and engaging patients in RM.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle