Evaluation of a Remote Patient Monitoring Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Case Study With a Mixed Methods Explanatory Sequential Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Community health center (CHC) patients experience a disproportionately high prevalence of chronic conditions and barriers to accessing technologies that might support the management of these conditions. One such technology includes tools used for remote patient monitoring (RPM), the use of which surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess how a CHC implemented an RPM program during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This retrospective case study used a mixed methods explanatory sequential design to evaluate a CHC's implementation of a suite of RPM tools during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses used electronic health record-extracted health outcomes data and semistructured interviews with the CHC's staff and patients participating in the RPM program. RESULTS: The CHC enrolled 147 patients in a hypertension RPM program. After 6 months of RPM use, mean systolic blood pressure (BP) was 13.4 mm Hg lower and mean diastolic BP 6.4 mm Hg lower, corresponding with an increase in hypertension control (BP<140/90 mm Hg) from 33.3% of patients to 81.5%. Considerable effort was dedicated to standing up the program, reinforced by organizational prioritization of chronic disease management, and by a clinician who championed program implementation. Noted barriers to implementation of the RPM program were limited initial training, lack of sustained support, and complexities related to the RPM device technology. CONCLUSIONS: While RPM technology holds promise for addressing chronic disease management, successful RPM program requires substantial investment in implementation support and technical assistance.
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 | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".