Patient Perspectives on Innovative Telemonitoring Enhanced Care Program for Chronic Heart Failure (ITEC-CHF): Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telemonitoring enables care providers to remotely support outpatients in self-managing chronic heart failure (CHF), but little is known about the usability and patients' willingness to engage with this technology. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate feedback from patients with CHF following participation in the Innovative Telemonitoring Enhanced Care program for CHF (ITEC-CHF) study. METHODS: The telemonitoring intervention consisted of three components: remote weight monitoring, structured telephone support, and nurse-led collaborative care. Participants were provided with electronic weighing scales (W550; ForaCare), and a computer tablet (Galaxy Tab A; Samsung). They were asked to weigh themselves on the provided scales daily. Telemonitoring was integrated with a personal assistance call service and a nurse care service according to their workflows in usual care. Feedback on the usability of ITEC-CHF was collected via survey from study participants following 6 months of receiving telemonitoring care for their body weight. Survey responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale and through open-ended questions to determine participants' perceived benefits and barriers to using ITEC-CHF. RESULTS: A total of 67 participants (49/67, 73% male), with a mean age of 69.8 (SD 12.4) years completed the survey. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the ITEC-CHF program was easy to use (61/67, 91%), easy to navigate (51/65, 78%), useful (59/65, 91%), and made them feel more confident in managing their weight (57/67, 85%). Themes related to participants' perceptions of telemonitoring included increased support for early intervention of clinical deterioration, improved compliance to daily weighing, a sense of reassurance, and improved self-care and accountability, among others. CONCLUSIONS: ITEC-CHF was rated highly on usability and was well accepted by users as part of their routine self-management activities. Participants were willing to use telemonitoring because they perceived a broad spectrum of benefits for CHF management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ID ACTRN 12614000916640; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366691.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".