Patient and healthcare provider reported barriers and enablers to virtual or remote-only follow-up models for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: protocol for a qualitative framework synthesis

Table 1 Eligibility criteria for the research questions using the PerSPECTiF framework for (a) patients or their caregivers, (b) device clinics

Per perspective	S setting	P phenomenon of interest	E environment	C comparison	Ti timing	F findings
(a) Individuals with a CIED (pacemaker, ICD, (CRT)^a. (b) Clinical caregiver involved in any aspect of virtual follow-up or care of patients with CIEDs.	Outpatient/ambulatory care. In any setting (urban, rural, remote) or context.	Virtual follow-up and/or virtual care^b.	In any environment or within an environment of prioritized health equity.	Any or none.	Any time following CIED implant (short or long-term). Any timing of intervention delivery.	Barriers, facilitators, and satisfaction with care as identified through perceptions, attitudes, experiences, viewpoints, expectations, understandings of patients or healthcare providers when using or implementing virtual follow-up or care (using any service model or approach).
Study design
Original research articles having a qualitative component (i.e., qualitative, mixed-, or multi-method studies).
Time frame
January 1, 2000 to present.
Language
English or French.

CIED cardiovascular implantable electronic device, ICD implantable cardioverter defibrillator, CRT cardiac resynchronization therapy
^aDevice may be de novo, existing, or in a patient undergoing a pulse generator change that now has virtual follow-up or care capabilities, or their informal caregivers
^bIncludes the broad context in which virtual follow-up or care is used (e.g., setting, resource allocation considerations, health, and human resources issues); how it fits in the process of patient care; experiences, expectations, and perceptions of virtual follow-up or care

ISSN: 2046-4053