Patient-reported outcomes in primary care patients with COPD

Psychometric properties and usefulness of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). A cross-sectional study

A.M. Pommer, F. Pouwer, J. Denollet, J.W.G. Meijer, V.J.M. Pop

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

32 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background
Remote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.
Objectives
The primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.
Methods
The REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.
Conclusion
The REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.
Keywords: REMOTE-CIED, Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, Remote monitoring, Patient-reported outcomes, Cost-effectiveness
Original languageEnglish
Journalnpj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine
Volume24
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Cross-Sectional Studies
Equipment and Supplies
Implantable Defibrillators
Physiologic Monitoring
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{547ad27b709c46e686a866c5ca266459,
title = "Patient-reported outcomes in primary care patients with COPD: Psychometric properties and usefulness of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). A cross-sectional study",
abstract = "BackgroundRemote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.MethodsThe REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE{\circledR} Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.ConclusionThe REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.Keywords: REMOTE-CIED, Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, Remote monitoring, Patient-reported outcomes, Cost-effectiveness",
author = "A.M. Pommer and F. Pouwer and J. Denollet and J.W.G. Meijer and V.J.M. Pop",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.27",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
journal = "npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine",
issn = "2055-1010",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-reported outcomes in primary care patients with COPD

T2 - Psychometric properties and usefulness of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). A cross-sectional study

AU - Pommer, A.M.

AU - Pouwer, F.

AU - Denollet, J.

AU - Meijer, J.W.G.

AU - Pop, V.J.M.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - BackgroundRemote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.MethodsThe REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.ConclusionThe REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.Keywords: REMOTE-CIED, Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, Remote monitoring, Patient-reported outcomes, Cost-effectiveness

AB - BackgroundRemote patient monitoring is a safe and effective alternative for the in-clinic follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, evidence on the patient perspective on remote monitoring is scarce and inconsistent.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the REMOTE-CIED study is to evaluate the influence of remote patient monitoring versus in-clinic follow-up on patient-reported outcomes. Secondary objectives are to: 1) identify subgroups of patients who may not be satisfied with remote monitoring; and 2) investigate the cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring.MethodsThe REMOTE-CIED study is an international randomised controlled study that will include 900 consecutive heart failure patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) compatible with the Boston Scientific LATITUDE® Remote Patient Management system at participating centres in five European countries. Patients will be randomised to remote monitoring or in-clinic follow-up. The In-Clinic group will visit the outpatient clinic every 3–6 months, according to standard practice. The Remote Monitoring group only visits the outpatient clinic at 12 and 24 months post-implantation, other check-ups are performed remotely. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires at five time points during the 2-year follow-up.ConclusionThe REMOTE-CIED study will provide insight into the patient perspective on remote monitoring in ICD patients, which could help to support patient-centred care in the future.Keywords: REMOTE-CIED, Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, Remote monitoring, Patient-reported outcomes, Cost-effectiveness

U2 - 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.27

DO - 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.27

M3 - Article

VL - 24

JO - npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine

JF - npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine

SN - 2055-1010

ER -