A Remote Patient Monitoring System With Feedback Mechanisms Using a Smartwatch: Concept, Implementation, and Evaluation Based on the activeDCM Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technological advances allow for recording and sharing health-related data in a patient-centric way using smartphones and wearables. Secure sharing of such patient-generated data with physicians would enable close management of individual health trajectories, monitoring of risk factors, and asynchronous feedback. However, most remote patient monitoring (RPM) systems currently available are not fully integrated into hospital IT systems or lack a patient-centric design. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to conceptualize and implement a user-friendly, reusable, interoperable, and secure RPM system incorporating asynchronous feedback mechanisms using a broadly available consumer wearable (Apple Watch). In addition, this study sought to evaluate factors influencing patient acceptance of such systems. METHODS: The RPM system requirements were established through focus group sessions. Subsequently, a system concept was designed and implemented using an iterative approach ensuring technical feasibility from the beginning. To assess clinical feasibility, the system was used as part of the activeDCM prospective randomized interventional study focusing on dilated cardiomyopathy. Each patient used the system for at least 12 months. The System Usability Scale was used to measure usability from a subjective patient perspective. In addition, an evaluation was conducted on the objective wearable interaction frequency as well as the completeness of transmitted data classified into sensor-based health data (SHD) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Descriptive statistics using box plots and bootstrapped multiple linear regression with 95% CIs were used for evaluation analyzing the influence of age, sex, device experience, and intervention group membership. RESULTS: The RPM system comprised 4 interoperable components: patient devices, a data server, a data viewer, and a notification service. The system was evaluated with 95 consecutive patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (28/95, 29% female; mean age 50, SD 12 y) who completed the activeDCM study protocol. The system's app achieved a mean System Usability Scale score of 78 (SD 17), which was most influenced by device experience. In total, 87% (83/95) of the patients could integrate the use of the app well or very well into their daily routine, and 71% (67/95) saw a benefit of the RPM system for management of their health condition. On average, patients interacted with the wearable on 61% (SD 26%) of days enrolled in the study. SHD were available on average for 78% (SD 23%) of days, and PROM data were available on 64% (SD 27%) of weeks enrolled in the study. Wearable interaction frequency, SHD, and PROM completeness were most influenced by intervention group membership. CONCLUSIONS: Our results mark a first step toward integrating RPM systems based on a consumer wearable device for primary patient input into standardized clinical workflows. They can serve as a blueprint for creating a user-friendly, reusable, interoperable, and secure RPM system that can be integrated into patients' daily routines.
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 | 0.043 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".