Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Nephrology

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

A personalized follow-up of kidney transplant recipients using video conferencing based on a 1-year scoring system predictive of long term graft failure (TELEGRAFT study): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

  • Yohann Foucher1, 2, 3,
  • Aurélie Meurette2,
  • Pascal Daguin2,
  • Angélique Bonnaud-Antignac1,
  • Jean-Benoît Hardouin1, 3,
  • Sabrina Chailan3,
  • Karine Neau3,
  • Emmanuelle Papuchon2,
  • Sandra Gaboriau2,
  • Christophe Legendre4,
  • Emmanuel Morélon5,
  • Philippe Tessier1, 3 and
  • Magali Giral1, 2, 6Email author
BMC Nephrology201516:6

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-16-6

Received: 17 December 2014

Accepted: 14 January 2015

Published: 28 January 2015

Abstract

Background

Numerous well-established clinical parameters are taken into consideration for the follow-up adaptation of kidney transplant recipients, but there are important disparities between countries, centres and clinicians. Therefore, novel scoring systems have been developed, for instance the Kidney Transplant Failure Score (KTFS) which aims to stratify patients according to their risk of return to dialysis. We hypothesize that the efficiency of the follow-up after one year post-transplantation can be improved by adapting it to the risk of graft failure defined by the KTFS estimation.

Methods/design

We propose a phase IV, open label, randomized, multicentric and prospective study. The study is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry NCT01615900. 250 patients will be allocated to one of two arms: the eHealth program versus the standard of care at hospital. In the standard group, patients classified at low-risk (KTFS ≤ 4.17) will be scheduled 4 visits at hospital per year, whilst high-risk patients will visit hospital 6 times. In the eHealth group, patients classified at low-risk will be interviewed 3 times by video conferencing and once at hospital, whilst 6 visits at hospital and 6 video conferencing will be scheduled for high-risk patients.

Discussion

The current study allows to scientifically evaluate the etiologic impact of a novel eHealth program. This is important to clarify the possible contribution of telemedicine in the improvement of medical follow-up. The proposed design based on 4 different sub-groups can be interesting to evaluate other personalized medicine programs.

Keywords

Kidney transplantationPersonalized follow-upVideo conferencingRandomized clinical trial

Background

The prevalence of renal insufficiency is increasing in all developed countries, mainly due to the ageing population, and is leading to an increased prevalence of end stage renal disease (ESRD). In France, the prevalence of ESRD was estimated to be 70,700 cases, with 56% of patients under dialysis and 44% with a functional transplant [1]. Compared to renal transplantation, extra renal dialysis is associated with higher mortality [2] and lower quality of life [3, 4]. Additionally, the overall long-term cost of transplantation is lower than that of dialysis. In France in 2007, the mean annual cost of hemodialysis for the social insurance system reached €88,608 versus €20,147 for transplantation. Quite importantly, the mean transplantation cost includes a significantly higher cost in the first year, where it is comparable to that of hemodialysis [5]. This occurs because of the higher clinical requirements immediately post transplantation, such as systematic biopsies, immunosuppressive drug adaptation, and risk of acute rejection.

Despite guidelines provided by the French health authority (HAS), the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) and the European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), there are important disparities in the patient follow-up between transplantation centres. Numerous well-established clinical parameters are naturally taken into consideration for years for the follow-up adaptation, but novel scoring systems have also been developed to assist physicians and clinicians for the personalization of care.

Because of this, we were prompted to develop the Kidney Transplant Failure Score (KTFS). The KTFS is based on eight clinical and biological factors collected within the first year of transplantation, that are easily measurable and non–invasive [6]. The KTFS was associated with an area under the time-dependent ROC curve of 0.78 (CI95% = [0.71, 0.86]) for a prognostic up to eight years post-transplantation. Low-risk patients (KTFS ≤ 4.17) had a 93% probability of having a functional kidney at 8 years post-transplantation. In contrast, the graft survival of the high-risk patients (KTFS > 4.17) was estimated at 70%.

In the present study, we hypothesize that the efficiency of the kidney transplant recipient follow-up after one year post-transplantation could be further improved by adapting it to the risk of graft failure defined by the KTFS estimation. We propose video conferencing in addition to the KTFS estimation at one-year in order to 1) decrease the number of visits at hospital for low-risk patients without reduction in quality of life or graft survival and 2) increase the number of visits for high-risk patients with a possible improvement in graft survival.

The primary aim of the study is to evaluate the efficiency of a personalized follow-up for kidney transplant recipients that consists of adapting the frequencies of video conferencing at home and visits at hospital depending on the KTFS value. We expect such a personalized follow-up to be cost-effective compared to the conventional in-hospital follow-up strategy for both low- and high-risk patients groups.

Methods

Design

This is a phase IV, open label, randomized, multicentric and prospective study. Patients are allocated to one of two arms: the novel eHealth program versus the standard of care at hospital. The 1:1 randomization of patients is stratified on centers, and performed at 1-year post-transplantation. The participation for each patient is planned for 2 years. Figure 1 outlines the study design.
Figure 1

Summary of the TELEGRAFT study design. Circles represent the allocation process for patients into one of the four sub-groups.

Participants

Initial inclusion criteria were: 1) patients were alive with a functional kidney at one-year post-transplantation, 2) patients with high-speed internet access, usually digital subscriber line or fiber optic cable, 3) patients without ongoing CMV or BKV infection, 4) men or non-pregnant women, 5) patients without mental disorders and 6) patients with a written informed consent. Participants will be recruited from the University hospitals in Nantes, Paris (Necker) and Lyon (Edouard Herriot). All of these transplantation centers participate to the DIVAT and the CENTAURE networks (http://www.divat.fr, http://www.fondation-centaure.org). The recruitment will be performed at the 1-year post-transplantation hospital visit.

Video conferencing devices

When patients are allocated in the eHealth program, they receive two devices: 1) A USB flash drive which allows the collection of medical information before the video conferencing. The plug-in of this device opens up a secure connection to the web via an intuitive interface specially designed for non-internet specialist patients. This hardware contains a security token for an easy and secure authentication. No software installation is necessary, only an internet connection is required, and provides web-browser independent access. 2) A tablet computer (iPad®, Apple Inc) specifically devoted for the video conferencing. Similar security is ensured by a system comparable to the USB device (token principle). Of note, the use of personal computers was first tested for 12 patients, but was concluded to be too difficult to apply in practice for several technical reasons. These included the requirement for software installation, variability in computer devices, operating systems and firewalls. Because kidney transplant recipients constitute an ageing population, we endeavored to make access as simple as possible.

Standard care (control group)

Patients classified at low-risk of graft failure within the first 8 years post-transplantation (KTFS ≤ 4.17), will be scheduled 4 visits at hospital per year, whilst high-risk patients (KTFS > 4.17) will visit hospital 6 times. These Standard Visits (SV) consist of clinical examinations (weight and blood pressure measurements) with standard blood and urine monitoring (network file system, blood electrolytes, uremia, creatinemia and trough levels of immunosuppressive drugs). Among the 4 or 6 visits (depending of the risk group), 1 visit is devoted to a Complete Check-up (CC): detailed medical examination, additional pathology parameters (daily proteinuria, albuminemia, 25(OH)vitamin D, parathyroïd hormone, bilirubinemia, serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase, serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase, Gamma-glutamyl transferase, phosphatase alkalinity, prostate specific antigen, viral serologies (Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, HIV, CMV, EBV) and anti HLA responses screened by Luminex technology), morphologic exams (ultrasound scan and doppler sonographic of the graft artery and pulmonary X ray), and questionnaires related to quality of life (QoL) and psychological dimensions.

eHealth program (studied group)

Patients classified at low-risk (KTFS ≤ 4.17) will be interviewed three times by video conferencing (VC). The following medical parameters are collected before the VC using the USB device: pulse, weight, temperature, and blood pressures. Only 1 CC will be performed at hospital at each anniversary of the graft (with the same complete monitoring as outlined for the control group). In contrast, six visits at hospital (1 CC and 5 SV) will be scheduled for high-risk patients (KTFS > 4.17), with six additional interposed VCs to reinforce the follow-up.

Table 1 summarizes the schedule of visits at hospital and video conferencing according to the 1-year KTFS estimation.
Table 1

Schedule of the four subgroups in the TELEGRAFT study

 

High-risk (KTFS > 4.17)

Low-risk (KTFS ≤ 4.17)

 

Standard

eHealth

Standard

eHealth

Day 0 (inclusion)

CC and data collection (written consent, QoL)

Week 03

-

VC

-

-

Week 06

SV

SV

-

-

Week 09 (Month 2)

-

VC

SV

VC

Week 12 (Month 3)

SV

SV

-

-

Week 15

-

VC

-

-

Week 18 (Month 4)

SV

SV

SV

VC

Week 21

-

VC

-

-

Week 24 (Month 6)

SV

SV

SV

VC

Week 27

-

VC

-

-

Week 30

SV

SV

-

-

Week 33

-

VC

-

-

Week 36

SV

SV

-

-

Week 39

-

VC

-

-

Week 42

SV

SV

-

-

Week 45

-

VC

-

-

Week 48

SV

SV

-

-

Week 50

-

VC

-

-

Week 52 (Month 12)

CC and data collection (pathology, QoL, morphologic exams)

Month 13

-

VC

-

-

Month 14

SV

SV

-

-

Month 15

-

VC

SV

VC

Month 16

SV

SV

-

-

Month 17

-

VC

-

-

Month 18

SV

SV

SV

VC

Month 19

-

VC

-

-

Month 20

SV

SV

-

-

Month 21

-

VC

SV

VC

Month 22

SV

SV

-

-

Month 23

-

VC

-

-

Month 24

CC and data collection (laboratory works, QoL, morphologic screaming)

SV, Standard Visit at hospital; CC, Complete Check-up at hospital; VC, Video Conferencing at home; Qol, Quality of Life.

Calculation of kidney transplant failure score

The KTFS calculation is facilitated by an application available on smartphones, tablets, or computers at http://www.divat.fr/en/online-calculators. The reportable results are exported as a simple file in Portable Document Format (PDF), and contains the results in terms of patient classification and risk of return to dialysis.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome is composite and defined by the absence of major complications until two years post-randomization, i.e. a patient is alive with a functional kidney, without acute rejection episodes, without a decrease in the graft filtration rate (eGFR) higher than 25% estimated by the Levey’s formula [7] and without cancer. Other secondary outcomes will also be analyzed to evaluate the efficiency of the eHealth program: 1) The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) comparing eHealth with at-hospital follow-up programs, estimated from the perspective of the health care system as the mean difference in two years costs divided by the mean difference in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) calculated using the EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire [8]. One ICER will be estimated for both the low and high risk patient groups. 2). The evolution of the transplant-specific or generic QoL respectively measured by the ReTransQoL and the SF36 questionnaires [911]. 3) The evolution of other psychological dimensions related to the stress by using the ways of coping checklist [12], the anxiety/depression by using the hospital anxiety and depression scale [13] and by using the post-traumatic growth inventory [14].

All outcomes will be compared between patients allocated to the eHealth program versus those in the control standard care group. Secondarily, the same comparisons will also be performed within each subgroup of graft failure susceptibility, i.e. KTFS +/- 4.17.

Sample size

We initially aimed to include a total of 700 patients, which was based on the number of participating centers and the workload of each center. Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties in video conferencing, we will recruit a total of ~250 transplant recipients. Assuming 90% of patients without complication in both groups for the primary outcome, a one-sided type I error level of 0.05 and a 3% non-inferiority margin, this sample size of 125 patients in each group is associated with a power at 20%. Therefore, we acknowledge that the statistical power of the TELEGRAFT study is low. 1,237 patients per group would have been necessary to reach a power of 80%. Nevertheless, a total sample size of 2,474 recipients is obviously impossible to obtain, since it represents approximately the total number of kidney transplantations for one year in France.

Data acquisition

Demographic, clinical variables, and other specific questionnaires are collected in the DIVAT (Données Informatisées et VAlidées en Transplantation) multicentric and prospective cohort using Integralis®, a web-based application for data management of observational cohorts (http://www.idbc.fr). The data related to the specific questionnaires are manually completed by the patients, and subsequently entered in the data base.

Data analysis

A first descriptive analysis of the patients’ characteristics between both groups will be conducted to identify possible confounding factors, even though randomization should ensure comparability. The eHealth program versus the standard of care will be concluded as non-inferior if the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the difference in the primary endpoint (percentage of patients without major complications), calculated by non-parametric bootstrapping, is higher than -3%. For secondary outcomes, two-sided 95% CIs will be computed and two-tailed t-tests or chi-square statistics will be used to report p-values. 95% confidence intervals for ICER of eHealth versus at-hospital follow-up programs will be estimated using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results of the cost-effectiveness will also be analyzed using acceptability curves, by plotting the probability of eHealth program compared to standard of care follow up being cost-effective against the willingness to pay for a QALY. Deterministic sensitivity analyses will also be performed to assess the robustness of results depending on the cost of the video conferencing system. The evolution over time of each psychological dimension will be modeled using latent mixed regression Rasch models [15]. These models allow the responses to the items of each dimension to be transformed in a quantitative measure that represents the concept studied by this dimension, and allows measures to be explained by covariates. These models take into account the repeatability of the measures for each patient by using a random effect. For the dimensions where the Rasch model will not fit the data, the score computed as the sum of the items of this dimension will be modeled using a mixed linear model. With these models, the effect of the eHealth program on the evolution of the psychological measures will be determined, and this effect will be adjusted on other covariates (sex, age, risk classification…).

Ethical approval and registration

The study is registered with the Clinical Trials Registry (NCT01615900) and has approval from the ethical Committee for Persons’ Protection (CPP, Tours, 2011-R30).

Schedule

After initial refinement, in particular the resolution of technical issues related to the video conferencing by choosing a tablet computer, only the Nantes University hospital began the study with an inclusion of 38 patients. Patient inclusions from the other centers are possible from September 2014. Based on the yearly number of transplantations performed among the three participating centers, we expect to include 250 patients by September 2016. In line with the two-year follow up, the end of data collection is anticipated by September 2018, and publication of the results in 2019.

Discussion

The cost-effectiveness of renal transplantation for ESRD patients is well-established compared to long-term dialysis [1618]. Nevertheless, because the follow-up of the kidney transplant recipient is often performed at hospitals several times per year, is often coupled with significant travel requirements, long queue times and the stress associated with medical examinations, this places a measureable increase in costs and may impact the recipient’s QoL. This issue is even more pertinent when considering the increased prevalence of patients living with a functional kidney; 31,000 French patients in 2011 [1]. We hypothesized that video conferencing at home by using USB device and tablet computer may improve the efficiency of kidney transplant recipient follow-up. Such web- or mobile-based communication systems have already been considered as possible improvements for medical follow-up for other diseases; for instance in diabetes patients [19], in women after gynecological surgery [20], or for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [21].

One very important and relevant potential benefit of our adaptation of the video conferencing frequency is in regard to the frailty of patients, i.e. their risk of graft failure evaluated by the KTFS [6]. The aim of the TELEGRAFT study is to determine whether video conferencing could be used to individualize patients’ care so as to lighten (reinforce) follow-up in low (high) risk patients as compared to standard of care at hospital. This reallocation of health care resources could be profitable in many aspects. On one hand, it might increase the QoL of low-risk patients by offering them living conditions closer to those of the general healthy population whilst lowering their medical follow-up. On the other hand, it might improve the management of the daily queue at hospitals thus allowing physicians to allocate more time to high-risk patients. Our study will propose to evaluate these different dimensions and also to investigate adherence of patients and physicians.

Even if the randomized study we propose suffers from a small statistical power, the analysis will be based on a control group, i.e. comparable patients following standard of care. This design allows etiologic results without confounders, as requested by the Committee on Evaluating Clinical Applications of Telemedicine [22], in contrast to the majority of the literature in Telemedicine which is based on observational studies [2325]. This may explain why the possible contribution of telemedicine in the improvement of medical follow-up is currently not clear [26, 27].

In conclusion, the current study allows to scientifically evaluate the etiologic impact of a novel eHealth program for the medical follow-up of kidney transplant recipients. We believe that the results will have an important impact in the transplantation community. Additionally, because the medical care of people with chronic disease is under the spotlight given the growing prevalence of such conditions in ageing populations, the proposed randomized design with 4 different sub-groups can be interesting to evaluate other personalized medicine programs.

Abbreviations

KTR: 

Kidney transplant recipient

KTFS: 

Kidney transplant failure score

ESRD: 

End stage renal disease

HAS: 

French health authority

KDIGO: 

Kidney disease improving global outcomes

ERBP: 

European renal best practice

ROC: 

Receiver operating characteristic

CMV: 

CytoMegaloVirus

BKV: 

BK virus

CC: 

Complete check-up

HIV: 

Human immunodeficiency virus

EBV: 

Epstein-barr virus

QoL: 

Quality of life

VC: 

Video conferencing

DIVAT: 

Données informatisées et validées en transplantation

ICER: 

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

CI: 

Confidence interval.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRC, PROG/20-12, 2011). The protocol was also independently peer-reviewed by this institution. The Region “Pays de la Loire” and the Regional Health Agency (ARS) also support the rental of the tablets and the equipment deployed in Nantes Universality hospital.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
SPHERE (EA4275) - Biostatistics, Clinical Research and Pharmaco-Epidemiology, Nantes University
(2)
Institut de Transplantation et de Recherche en Transplantation, ITUN, CHU Nantes, Nantes University Hospital
(3)
Délégation à la recherche clinique et à l’innovation, CHU Nantes
(4)
Service de Transplantation Rénale et de Soins Intensifs, Hôpital Necker, APHP and Universités Paris Descartes et Sorbonne Paris Cité
(5)
Service de Néphrologie, Transplantation et Immunologie Clinique, Hôpital Edouard Herriot
(6)
CENTAURE Fondation, Centre d’Investigation Clinique en Biothérapie, Nantes University and INSERM U1064

References

  1. Couchoud C, Lassalle M, Jacquelinet C: REIN Report 2011-summary.Néphrol Thér 2013,9(Suppl 1):S3–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al.: Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant.N Engl J Med 1999, 341:1725–30. 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Loos C, Briancon S, Frimat L, Hanesse B, Kessler M: Effect of end-stage renal disease on the quality of life of older patients.J Am Geriatr Soc 2003, 51:229–33. 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51062.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jaar BG, Chang A, Plantinga L: Can we improve quality of life of patients on dialysis?Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2013, 8:1–4. 10.2215/CJN.11861112View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Haute Autorité de Santé: Note de Cadrage “Évaluation Médico-Économique Des Stratégies de Prise En Charge de L’insuffisance Rénale En France.”. France: Saint-Denis La Plaine; http://www.hassante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-09/synthese_irct_volet_greffe_vf.pdf
  6. Foucher Y, Daguin P, Akl A, Kessler M, Ladriere M, Legendre C, et al.: A clinical scoring system highly predictive of long-term kidney graft survival.Kidney Int 2010, 78:1288–94. 10.1038/ki.2010.232View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Levey A, Coresh J, Greene T, STevens L, Zhang Y, Hendriksen S, et al.: Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate.Ann Intern Med 2006, 145:247–54. 10.7326/0003-4819-145-4-200608150-00004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Group EQ: EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life.Health Policy Amst Neth 1990, 16:199–208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Gentile S, Jouve E, Dussol B, Moal V, Berland Y, Sambuc R: Development and validation of a French patient-based health-related quality of life instrument in kidney transplant: the ReTransQoL.Health Qual Life Outcomes 2008, 6:78. 10.1186/1477-7525-6-78View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Beauger D, Gentile S, Jouve E, Dussol B, Jacquelinet C, Briancon S: Analysis, evaluation and adaptation of the ReTransQoL: a specific quality of life questionnaire for renal transplant recipients.Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:148. 10.1186/1477-7525-11-148View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Leplège A, Ecosse E, Verdier A, Perneger TV: The French SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation.J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:1013–23. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00093-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Lazarus R, Folkman S: Stress, appraisal and coping. New-York: Springer; 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale.Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361–70. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG: The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma.J Trauma Stress 1996, 9:455–71. 10.1002/jts.2490090305View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Christensen KB, Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Petersen JH: Latent regression in loglinear rasch models.Commun Stat Theory Methods 2004, 33:1295–313. 10.1081/STA-120030150View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen CE, Sørensen P, Petersen KD: In Denmark kidney transplantation is more cost-effective than dialysis.Dan Med J 2014, 61:A4796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wong G, Howard K, Chapman JR, Chadban S, Cross N, Tong A, et al.: Comparative survival and economic benefits of deceased donor kidney transplantation and dialysis in people with varying ages and co-morbidities.PloS One 2012, 7:e29591. 10.1371/journal.pone.0029591View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarl J, Gerdtham U-G: Economic evaluations of organ transplantations - a systematic literature review.Nord J Health Econ 2011, 1:61–83.Google Scholar
  19. Williams ED, Bird D, Forbes AW, Russell A, Ash S, Friedman R, et al.: Randomised controlled trial of an automated, interactive telephone intervention (TLC Diabetes) to improve type 2 diabetes management: baseline findings and six-month outcomes.BMC Public Health 2012, 12:602. 10.1186/1471-2458-12-602View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Bouwsma EV, Anema JR, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Knol DL, Bosmans JE, Schraffordt Koops SE, et al.: The cost effectiveness of a tailored, web-based care program to enhance postoperative recovery in gynecologic patients in comparison with usual care: protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.JMIR Res Protoc 2014, 3:e30. 10.2196/resprot.3236View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Voncken-Brewster V, Tange H, de Vries H, Nagykaldi Z, Winkens B, van der Weijden T: A randomised controlled trial testing a web-based, computer-tailored self-management intervention for people with or at risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a study protocol.BMC Public Health 2013, 13:557. 10.1186/1471-2458-13-557View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine: The role of telehealth in an evolving health care environment: workshop summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2012.Google Scholar
  23. Bernocchi P, Scalvini S, Bertacchini F, Rivadossi F, Muiesan ML: Home based telemedicine intervention for patients with uncontrolled hypertension: - a real life - non-randomized study.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2014, 14:52. 10.1186/1472-6947-14-52View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Otero AV, Lopez-Magallon AJ, Jaimes D, Motoa MV, Ruz M, Erdmenger J, et al.: International telemedicine in pediatric cardiac critical care: a multicenter experience.Telemed J E Health. 2014,20(7):619–25. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0307 10.1089/tmj.2013.0307View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Rho MJ, Kim SR, Kim H-S, Cho J-H, Yoon K-H, Mun SK, et al.: Exploring the relationship among user satisfaction, compliance, and clinical outcomes of telemedicine services for glucose control.Telemed J E Health. 2014,20(8):712–20. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0309 10.1089/tmj.2013.0309View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Farberow B, Hatton V, Leenknecht C, Goldberg LR, Hornung CA, Reyes B: Caveat emptor: the need for evidence, regulation, and certification of home telehealth systems for the management of chronic conditions.Am J Med Qual Off J Am Coll Med Qual 2008, 23:208–14. 10.1177/1062860608315123View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Raven M, Butler C, Bywood P: Video-based telehealth in Australian primary health care: current use and future potential.Aust J Prim Health 2013, 19:283–6. 10.1071/PY13032View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/16/6/prepub

Copyright

© Foucher et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement