↓ Skip to main content

The value of telemonitoring and ICT-guided disease management in heart failure: Results from the IN TOUCH study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Medical Informatics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 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
The value of telemonitoring and ICT-guided disease management in heart failure: Results from the IN TOUCH study
Published in
International Journal of Medical Informatics, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.10.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Imke Kraai, Arjen de Vries, Karin Vermeulen, Vincent van Deursen, Martje van der Wal, Richard de Jong, René van Dijk, Tiny Jaarsma, Hans Hillege, Ivonne Lesman

Abstract

It is still unclear whether telemonitoring reduces hospitalization and mortality in heart failure (HF) patients and whether adding an Information and Computing Technology-guided-disease-management-system (ICT-guided-DMS) improves clinical and patient reported outcomes or reduces healthcare costs. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed testing the effects of INnovative ICT-guided-DMS combined with Telemonitoring in OUtpatient clinics for Chronic HF patients (IN TOUCH) with in total 179 patients (mean age 69 years; 72% male; 77% in New York Heart Association Classification (NYHA) III-IV; mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%). Patients were randomized to ICT-guided-DMS or to ICT-guided-DMS+telemonitoring with a follow-up of nine months. The composite endpoint included mortality, HF-readmission and change in health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). In total 177 patients were eligible for analyses. The mean score of the primary composite endpoint was -0.63 in ICT-guided-DMS vs. -0.73 in ICT-guided-DMS+telemonitoring (mean difference 0.1, 95% CI: -0.67 +0.82, p=0.39). All-cause mortality in ICT-guided-DMS was 12% versus 15% in ICT-guided-DMS+telemonitoring (p=0.27); HF-readmission 28% vs. 27% p=0.87; all-cause readmission was 49% vs. 51% (p=0.78). HR-QoL improved in most patients and was equal in both groups. Incremental costs were €1360 in favor of ICT-guided-DMS. ICT-guided-DMS+telemonitoring had significantly fewer HF-outpatient-clinic visits (p<0.01). ICT-guided-DMS+telemonitoring for the management of HF patients did not affect the primary and secondary endpoints. However, we did find a reduction in visits to the HF-outpatient clinic in this group suggesting that telemonitoring might be safe to use in reorganizing HF-care with relatively low costs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 173 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Researcher 16 9%
Other 9 5%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 41 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 18%
Computer Science 12 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 46 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Medical Informatics
#574
of 1,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,267
of 294,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Medical Informatics
#7
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 294,217 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.