ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Design and development of a disease-agnostic remote patient monitoring typology and associated tools.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Remote patient monitoring (RPM) expanded dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to be implemented. However, no standardized method for classifying them exists which has implications for comparative evaluations. Our goal was to design and develop a disease-agnostic RPM typology tool as a first step towards a standardized approach for understanding and implementing RPM programs for different clinical use-cases. Guided by the Knowledge-To-Action framework, we conducted a rapid review of RPM programs from Canada, the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia that were used to manage diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and COVID-19. We identified 87 articles to define common characteristics of real-world RPM interventions to enable comparison across different programs through pattern recognition, information mapping, and sensemaking. We extracted data with a macros-enabled Excel template. Design sessions with key stakeholders (researchers, clinical advisors, provincial RPM managers, and patient partners) provided iterative feedback on the typology and we defined a glossary of characteristics. The 12 most reported characteristics of RPM programs (including size, resources, monitoring team, data flow, alert protocol, workflow, and equity considerations) were clustered into four domains. Integration and equity domains were recognised as ideal aspirations of all RPM programs. Technology and touch domains were considered to exist on a spectrum from low-to-high- neither inherently superior to the other. 16 distinct RPM typologies were expressed through a 4x4 matrix (i.e., high or low on each of the four domains). Using this tool can inform insights on program maturity, implementation, and continued investments in RPM. We anticipate this typology will help new initiatives have greater potential to be robustly evaluated and sustained to scale. Future directions include further validity testing and exploring feasibility to systematically categorise real-world RPM programs with this tool.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.