Smartphone-Based Remote Monitoring for Chronic Heart Failure: Mixed Methods Analysis of User Experience From Patient and Nurse Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community-based management by heart failure specialist nurses (HFSNs) is key to improving self-care in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Remote monitoring (RM) can aid nurse-led management, but in the literature, user feedback evaluation is skewed in favor of the patient rather than nursing user experience. Furthermore, the ways in which different groups use the same RM platform at the same time are rarely directly compared in the literature. We present a balanced semantic analysis of user feedback from patient and nurse perspectives of Luscii, a smartphone-based RM strategy combining self-measurement of vital signs, instant messaging, and e-learning. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) evaluate how patients and nurses use this type of RM (usage type), (2) evaluate patients' and nurses' user feedback on this type of RM (user experience), and (3) directly compare the usage type and user experience of patients and nurses using the same type of RM platform at the same time. METHODS: We performed a retrospective usage type and user experience evaluation of the RM platform from the perspective of both patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the HFSNs using the platform to manage them. We conducted semantic analysis of written patient feedback provided via the platform and a focus group of 6 HFSNs. Additionally, as an indirect measure of tablet adherence, self-measured vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass) were extracted from the RM platform at onboarding and 3 months later. Paired 2-tailed t tests were used to evaluate differences between mean scores across the 2 timepoints. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients (mean age 62 years; 35%, 28/79 female) were included. Semantic analysis of usage type revealed extensive, bidirectional information exchange between patients and HFSNs using the platform. Semantic analysis of user experience demonstrates a range of positive and negative perspectives. Positive impacts included increased patient engagement, convenience for both user groups, and continuity of care. Negative impacts included information overload for patients and increased workload for nurses. After the patients used the platform for 3 months, they showed significant reductions in heart rate (P=.004) and blood pressure (P=.008) but not body mass (P=.97) compared with onboarding. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone-based RM with messaging and e-learning facilitates bilateral information sharing between patients and nurses on a range of topics. Patient and nurse user experience is largely positive and symmetrical, but there are possible negative impacts on patient attention and nurse workload. We recommend RM providers involve patient and nurse users in platform development, including recognition of RM usage in nursing job plans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".