Evaluating the Implementation of a Mobile Phone–Based Telemonitoring Program: Longitudinal Study Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND Telemonitoring has shown promise for alleviating the burden of heart failure on individuals and health systems. However, real-world implementation of sustained programs is rare. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a mobile phone-based telemonitoring program, which has been implemented as part of standard care in a specialty heart function clinic by answering two research questions: (1) To what extent was the telemonitoring program successfully implemented? (2) What were the barriers and facilitators to implementing the telemonitoring program? METHODS We conducted a longitudinal single case study. The implementation success was evaluated using the following four implementation outcomes: adoption, penetration, feasibility, and fidelity. Semistructured interviews based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) were conducted at 0, 4, and 12 months with 12 program staff members to identify the barriers and facilitators of the implementation. RESULTS One year after the implementation, 98 patients and 8 clinicians were enrolled in the program. Despite minor technical issues, the intervention was used as intended. We obtained qualitative data from clinicians (n=8) and implementation staff members (n=4) for 24 CFIR constructs. A total of 12 constructs were facilitators clustered in the CFIR domains of inner setting (culture, tension for change, compatibility, relative priority, learning climate, leadership engagement, and available resources), characteristics of individuals (knowledge and beliefs about the intervention and self-efficacy), and process (engaging and reflecting and evaluating). In addition, we identified other notable facilitators from the characteristics of the intervention domain (relative advantage and adaptability) and the outer setting (patient needs and resources). Four constructs were perceived as minor barriers- the complexity of the intervention, cost, inadequate communication among high-level stakeholders, and the absence of a formal implementation plan. The remaining CFIR constructs had a neutral impact on the overall implementation. CONCLUSIONS This is the first comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of a mobile phone-based telemonitoring program. Although the acceptability of the telemonitoring system was high, the strongest facilitators to the implementation success were related to the implementation context. By identifying what works and what does not in a real-world clinical context using a framework-guided approach, this work will inform the design of telemonitoring services and implementation strategies of similar telemonitoring interventions.

[1]  Brenton G. Abadie,et al.  A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research , 2015, Implementation Science.

[2]  K. Radhakrishnan,et al.  Barriers and Facilitators for Sustainability of Tele-Homecare Programs: A Systematic Review. , 2016, Health services research.

[3]  Jean-Louis Denis,et al.  How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs , 2014 .

[4]  N. Gale,et al.  Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[5]  Patrick Ware,et al.  Implementation and Evaluation of a Smartphone-Based Telemonitoring Program for Patients With Heart Failure: Mixed-Methods Study Protocol , 2018, JMIR research protocols.

[6]  J. Lowery,et al.  Evaluation of a large-scale weight management program using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) , 2013, Implementation Science.

[7]  J. Cleland,et al.  Structured telephone support or non-invasive telemonitoring for patients with heart failure , 2016, Heart.

[8]  Alicia C. Bunger,et al.  Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda , 2010, Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research.

[9]  Marie-Pierre Gagnon,et al.  m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review , 2016, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  J. Lowery,et al.  Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science , 2009, Implementation science : IS.

[11]  Abraham Wandersman,et al.  The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process , 2012, American journal of community psychology.

[12]  Guy Paré,et al.  Effects of Home Telemonitoring Interventions on Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews , 2015, Journal of medical Internet research.

[13]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Understanding heart failure; explaining telehealth – a hermeneutic systematic review , 2017, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders.

[14]  Heather J Ross,et al.  Mobile Phone-Based Telemonitoring for Heart Failure Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[15]  Nida Shahid,et al.  A multi-level qualitative analysis of Telehomecare in Ontario: challenges and opportunities , 2015, BMC Health Services Research.

[16]  G. Wells,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Different Forms of Telemedicine for Individuals with Heart Failure (HF): A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis , 2015, PloS one.

[17]  A. Sheikh,et al.  Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: the views of patients and healthcare professionals - a qualitative study. , 2014, Journal of clinical nursing.

[18]  Karim Keshavjee,et al.  From benefits evaluation to clinical adoption: making sense of health information system success in Canada. , 2011, Healthcare quarterly.

[19]  G. Mountain,et al.  Factors affecting front line staff acceptance of telehealth technologies: a mixed-method systematic review. , 2014, Journal of advanced nursing.

[20]  S. Meystre The current state of telemonitoring: a comment on the literature. , 2005, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[21]  Sandra Prescher,et al.  Telemedical care: feasibility and perception of the patients and physicians: a survey-based acceptance analysis of the Telemedical Interventional Monitoring in Heart Failure (TIM-HF) trial , 2013, European journal of preventive cardiology.

[22]  Hai-Feng Zhang,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of telemedicine for chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2017, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[23]  Hyun-Young Park,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Telemonitoring Versus Usual Care for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2018, Journal of cardiac failure.

[24]  M. Johansen,et al.  Factors Determining the Success and Failure of eHealth Interventions: Systematic Review of the Literature , 2018, Journal of medical Internet research.

[25]  E. Seto,et al.  Perceptions and Experiences of Heart Failure Patients and Clinicians on the Use of Mobile Phone-Based Telemonitoring , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.