Citation:
Catalan-Matamoros, D., Lopez-Villegas, A., Leal Costa, C., Bautista-Mesa, R., Robles-Musso, E., Rocamora Perez, P., & Lopez-Liria, R. (2021). A non-randomized clinical trial to examine patients’ experiences and communication during telemonitoring of pacemakers after five years follow-up. In A. M. Kielbassa (Ed.), PLOS ONE (Vol. 16, Issue 12, p. e0261158). Public Library of Science (PLoS).
Patients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for
pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, inperson
visits could help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxietyPatients with pacemakers need regular follow-ups which are demanding. Telemonitoring for
pacemaker can provide a new opportunity to avoid follow-up visits. On the other hand, inperson
visits could help patients with pacemakers to cope better with the anxiety linked to
their condition and maintain better communication with their doctors than simple remote
control of their device status. Therefore, our objective was to analyze the experiences and
communication comparing telemonitoring (TM) versus conventional monitoring (CM) of
patients with pacemakers. A single-center, controlled, non-randomized, non-blinded clinical
trial was designed. Data were collected five years after implantation in a cohort of 89 consecutive
patients assigned to two different groups: TM and CM. The ‘Generic Short Patient
Experiences Questionnaire’ (GS-PEQ) was used to assess patients’ experiences, and the
Healthcare Communication Questionnaire (HCCQ) was used to measure the communication
of patients with healthcare professionals. Additionally, an ad-hoc survey including items
from the ‘Telehealth Patient Satisfaction Survey’ and a ‘costs survey’ was used. After five
years, 55 patients completed the study (TM = 21; CM = 34). Participants’ mean (±SD) age
was 81 (±6.47), and 31% were females. No differences in baseline characteristics between
groups were found. The comparative analyses TM versus CM showed some significant differences.
According to GS-PEQ, TM users received adequate information about their diagnosis
or afflictions (p = .035) and the treatment was better adapted to their situation (p =
.009). Both groups reported negative experiences regarding their involvement in their treatment
decisions, the waiting time before admission, and perceived a low-benefit. According
to HCCQ, the TM group experienced poorer consultation management by the healthcare
provider (p = .041). Participants reported positive overall communication experiences. The
study provides insights into the experiences and communication in PM monitoring services as well as specific areas where users reported negative experiences such as the consultation
management by clinicians.[+][-]