Digital Self-Monitoring Burdens Among Patients Living with Chronic Heart Disease: A Qualitative Descriptive Study

Lu Yan; Munadi; Linda Chiuman

doi:10.61919/0wj89x65

Authors

Lu Yan Universitas Prima Indonesia Author
Munadi Universitas Prima Indonesia Author
Linda Chiuman Universitas Prima Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61919/0wj89x65

Keywords:

chronic heart disease; digital self-monitoring; remote patient monitoring; treatment burden; digital health equity; qualitative research.

Abstract

Background: Digital self-monitoring is increasingly used in chronic heart disease care to support symptom tracking, risk recognition, and continuity between clinic visits, but its everyday burden for patients remains insufficiently understood. Objective: This study explored how patients living with chronic heart disease experienced digital self-monitoring and identified practical, emotional, technical, financial, relational, and service-related factors that shaped their acceptability and sustainability. Methods: This qualitative descriptive study analyzed 12 anonymised interview accounts from adults with chronic heart disease or related cardiac risk factors who had experience using digital self-monitoring tools. Data were examined using reflexive thematic analysis, with attention to participant engagement, support sources, dominant burdens, and theme–quote linkage. Results: Six themes were developed: measurement work and daily discipline; data anxiety and alert fatigue; digital literacy and device usability; cost and connectivity burden; clinician responsiveness and data accountability; and family involvement between support and surveillance. Participants valued monitoring when it offered reassurance, earlier response, and shared care, but they struggled when readings produced fear without interpretation, devices were difficult to use, uploads created hidden costs, clinician feedback was unclear, or family support became intrusive. Conclusion: Digital self-monitoring in chronic heart disease should be designed as minimally disruptive and accountable care, with personalised schedules, plain-language training, clear thresholds, affordable connectivity, visible clinical response, and consent-based caregiver involvement.

References

1. World Health Organization. Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025 [cited 2026 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds)

2. World Heart Federation. World Heart Report 2023: Confronting the world’s number one killer. Geneva: World Heart Federation; 2023.

3. American Heart Association. 2025 heart disease and stroke statistics fact sheet [Internet]. Dallas: American Heart Association; 2025 [cited 2026 Jun 9]. Available from: https://professional.heart.org/

4. World Health Organization. Global strategy on digital health 2020–2025. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

5. McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Bohm M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599-726.

6. Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895-e1032.

7. Visseren FLJ, Mach F, Smulders YM, Carballo D, Koskinas KC, Back M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(34):3227-337.

8. Scholte NTB, Gurgöze MT, Aydin D, Theuns DAMJ, Manintveld OC, de Boer RA, et al. Remote monitoring for heart failure: current evidence and future directions. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(31):2911-26.

9. Veenis JF, Radhoe SP, Hooijmans P, Brugts JJ. Remote monitoring in chronic heart failure patients: value of patient-generated health data. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(8):e28571.

10. Tan RY, Low LL, Lim SL, Ong MEH, Lee KH. Remote patient monitoring for chronic disease management: implementation and equity considerations. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7:1-10.

11. Paul S, George A, Nair S, Shah R, Patel V. Remote monitoring and patient-generated health data in cardiovascular care. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e64500.

12. Nordfonn OK, Larsen MH, Hauken MA, Bruvik F, Husebø AML. Experiences of treatment burden in people with chronic heart disease. BMJ Open. 2025;15(4):e091802.

13. Eton DT, Ridgeway JL, Linzer M, Boehm DH, Rogers EA, Yost KJ, et al. The burden of treatment in patients with chronic conditions. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(4):670-9.

14. Rogers EA, Yost KJ, Rosedahl JK, Linzer M, Boehm DH, Thakur A, et al. Minimally disruptive medicine and the burden of treatment in chronic illness. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(10):3136-43.

15. Mair FS, May CR. Thinking about the burden of treatment. BMJ. 2014;349:g6680.

16. Riegel B, Moser DK, Buck HG, Dickson VV, Dunbar SB, Lee CS, et al. Self-care for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease and stroke. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(9):e006997.

17. Negarandeh R, Aghajanloo A, Seylani K. Self-care behaviours and related factors in patients with heart failure. Nurs Open. 2020;7(6):1913-20.

18. Aamodt IT, Strömberg A, Hellesø R, Jaarsma T, Lie I. The contribution of self-care to heart failure outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;111:103718.

19. Masterson Creber RM, Hickey KT, Maurer MS, Reading M, Goyal P. Telehealth equity in older adults with heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2023;16(6):e010095.

20. Crawford A, Serhal E. Digital health equity and COVID-19: the innovation curve cannot reinforce the social gradient of health. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e19361.

21. Estacio EV, Whittle R, Protheroe J. The digital divide: examining socio-demographic factors associated with health literacy, access and use of internet to seek health information. J Health Psychol. 2019;24(12):1668-75.

22. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282.

23. Braun V, Clarke V. Thematic analysis: a practical guide. London: SAGE Publications; 2021.

24. DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of relationship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health. 2019;7(2):e000057.

25. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753-60.

26. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.

27. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-51.

28. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846-54.

29. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human participants [Internet]. Ferney-Voltaire: World Medical Association; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/

30. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research: a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.