↓ Skip to main content

Predicting adherence to use of remote health monitoring systems in a cohort of patients with chronic heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Technology & Health Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
101 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.
Article details
Title
Predicting adherence to use of remote health monitoring systems in a cohort of patients with chronic heart failure
Published in
Technology & Health Care, January 2017
DOI 10.3233/thc-161279
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

It is unclear whether subgroups of patients may benefit from remote monitoring systems (RMS) and what user characteristics and contextual factors determine effective use of RMS in patients with heart failure (HF). The study was conducted to determine whether certain user characteristics (i.e. personal and clinical variables) predict use of RMS using advanced machine learning software algorithms in patients with HF. This pilot study was a single-arm experimental study with a pre- (baseline) and post- (3 months) design; data from the baseline measures were used for the current data analyses. Sixteen patients provided consent; only 7 patients (mean age 65.8 ± 6.1, range 58-83) accessed the RMS and transmitted daily data (e.g. weight, blood pressure) as instructed during the 12 week study duration. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of users and non-users were comparable for a majority of factors. However, users were more likely to have no HF specialty based care or an automatic internal cardioverter defibrillator. The precision accuracy of decision tree, multilayer perceptron (MLP) and k-Nearest Neighbor (k-NN) classifiers for predicting access to RMS was 87.5%, 90.3%, and 94.5% respectively. Our preliminary data show that a small set of baseline attributes is sufficient to predict subgroups of patients who had a higher likelihood of using RMS. While our findings shed light on potential end-users more likely to benefit from RMS-based interventions, additional research in a larger sample is warranted to explicate the impact of user characteristics on actual use of these technologies.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 16%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Researcher 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 27 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 18%
Computer Science 7 7%
Psychology 7 7%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 35 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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
#12,343,598
of 34,358,242 outputs
Outputs from Technology & Health Care
#136
of 611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,035
of 462,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Technology & Health Care
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,358,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 611 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 462,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 51% of its contemporaries.