As telehealth plays an even greater role in global health care delivery, it will be increasingly important to develop a strong evidence base of successful, innovative telehealth solutions that can lead to scalable and sustainable telehealth programs. This paper has two aims: (1) to describe the challenges of promoting telehealth implementation to advance adoption and (2) to present a global research agenda for personalized telehealth within chronic disease management. Using evidence from the United States and the European Union, this paper provides a global overview of the current state of telehealth services and benefits, presents fundamental principles that must be addressed to advance the status quo, and provides a framework for current and future research initiatives within telehealth for personalized care, treatment, and prevention. A broad, multinational research agenda can provide a uniform framework for identifying and rapidly replicating best practices, while concurrently fostering global collaboration in the development and rigorous testing of new and emerging telehealth technologies. In this paper, the members of the Transatlantic Telehealth Research Network offer a 12-point research agenda for future telehealth applications within chronic disease management.

Background There is abundant research indicating poor physical, psychological and social functioning of patients with chronic heart failure (HF), a reality that can lead to poor health related quality of life (HRQoL). Little is known about the experience of rural HF patients. Methods and Results This study was part of a randomized clinical trial titled Rural Education to Improve Outcomes in Heart Failure (REMOTE-HF) designed to test an education and counseling intervention to improve self-care in patients with HF. We evaluated 612 rural patients. Multiple validated questionnaires were administered to assess patient perceptions of health and health literacy. Baseline factors were collected and compared to baseline QoL measures only. Patients’ HRQoL was assessed using the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) scale. The data were analyzed using a general linear model to test the association of various patient characteristics with quality of life in rural patients with HF. Patients were 65.8 (+12.9) years of age. The majority were male (58.7%), married (56.4%) and had completed a high school education (80.9%). Factors associated with reduced quality of life amongst this population include: geographic location, younger age, male gender, higher NYHA class, worse HF knowledge, poorer perceived control and symptoms of depression or anxiety. The data provided no evidence of an association between left ventricular ejection fraction and quality of life. Conclusions This study of rural HF patients confirms previously identified factors associated with perceptions of quality of life. However, further study is warranted with an urban control group.

Background— Patients with heart failure (HF) who live in rural areas have less access to cardiac services than patients in urban areas. We conducted a randomized, clinical trial to determine the impact of an educational intervention on the composite end point of HF rehospitalization and cardiac death in this population. Methods and Results— Patients (n=602; age, 66±13 years; 41% female; 51% with systolic HF) were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: control (usual care), Fluid Watchers LITE, or Fluid Watchers PLUS. Both intervention groups included a face-to-face education session delivered by a nurse focusing on self-care. The LITE group received 2 follow-up phone calls, whereas the PLUS group received biweekly calls (mean, 5.3±3.6; range, 1–19) until the nurse judged the patient to be adequately trained. Over 2 years of follow-up, 35% of patients (n=211) experienced cardiac death or hospitalization for HF, with no difference among the 3 groups in the proportion who experienced the combined clinical outcome ( P =0.06). Although patients in the LITE group had reduced cardiac mortality compared with patients in the control group over the 2 years of follow-up (7.5% and 17.7%, respectively; P =0.003), there was no significant difference in cardiac mortality between patients in the PLUS group and the control group. Conclusions— A face-to-face education intervention did not significantly decrease the combined end point of cardiac death or hospitalization for HF. Increasing the number of contacts between the patient and nurse did not significantly improve outcome. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00415545.