↓ Skip to main content

Heart Failure Telemonitoring in Japan and Sweden: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Heart Failure Telemonitoring in Japan and Sweden: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, November 2015
DOI 10.2196/jmir.4825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naoko P Kato, Peter Johansson, Ikuko Okada, Arjen E de Vries, Koichiro Kinugawa, Anna Strömberg, Tiny Jaarsma

Abstract

Telemonitoring of heart failure (HF) patients is increasingly discussed at conferences and addressed in research. However, little is known about actual use in specific countries. We aimed to (1) describe the use of non-invasive HF telemonitoring, (2) clarify expectations of telemonitoring among cardiologists and nurses, and (3) describe barriers to the implementation of telemonitoring in Japan and Sweden. This study used a cross-sectional survey of non-invasive HF telemonitoring. A total of 378 Japanese (120 cardiologists, 258 nurses) and 120 Swedish (39 cardiologists, 81 nurses) health care professionals from 165 Japanese and 61 Swedish hospitals/clinics nationwide participated in the study (210 in Japan and 98 in Sweden were approached). Data were collected between November 2013 and May 2014 with a questionnaire that was adapted from a previous Dutch study on telemonitoring. The mean age of the cardiologists and nurses was 47 years and 41 years, respectively. Experience at the current position caring for HF patients was 19 years among the physicians and 15 years among the nurses. In total, 7 Japanese (4.2%) and none of the Swedish health care institutions used telemonitoring. One fourth (24.0%, 118/498) of the health care professionals were familiar with the technology (in Japan: 21.6%, 82/378; in Sweden: 30.0%, 36/120). The highest expectations of telemonitoring (rated on a scale from 0-10) were reduced hospitalizations (8.3 in Japan and 7.5 in Sweden), increased patient self-care (7.8 and 7.4), and offering high-quality care (7.8 and 7.0). The major goal for introducing telemonitoring was to monitor physical condition and recognize signs of worsening HF in Japan (94.1%, 352/374) and Sweden (88.7%, 102/115). The following reasons were also high in Sweden: to monitor effects of treatment and adjust it remotely (86.9%, 100/115) and to do remote drug titration (79.1%, 91/115). Just under a quarter of Japanese (22.4%, 85/378) and over a third of Swedish (38.1%, 45/118) health care professionals thought that telemonitoring was a good way to follow up stable HF patients. Three domains of barriers were identified by content analysis: organizational barriers "how are we going to do it?" (categories include structure and resource), health care professionals themselves "what do we need to know and do" (reservation), and barriers related to patients "not everybody would benefit" (internal and external shortcomings). Telemonitoring for HF patients has not been implemented in Japan or Sweden. However, health care professionals have expectations of telemonitoring to reduce patients' hospitalizations and increase patient self-care. There are still a wide range of barriers to the implementation of HF telemonitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Psychology 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 20 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#6,373,631
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#3,990
of 7,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,820
of 292,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#49
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.