Table 1 Dimension and variables considered

Intervention’s positioning within the healthcare domain or industry

Space where the intervention is located (emergency, prevention, primary care, hospital and post-hospital)

Some areas of the healthcare domain may lend themselves to RPMTSs than others (less regulated, more easily conceivable, acceptable or convenient)

Levels of integration within existing clinical workflows

The extent to which traditional healthcare facilities are involved or linked with end users (patients and potential patients)

To reduce the care burden on traditional healthcare systems, the intervention has to facilitate service delivery within the community (at health centres, clinics, hospitals or home-based care)

Function versatility

Diversity of measured vital signs, symptoms and number of diseases targeted

The greater the number of diseases targeted and the greater the variety of functions (measured vital signs, assessed symptoms) performed by an RPMTS intervention, the better the chances for its adoption and scaling

Accessibility to the general public

Availability, affordability and ease of use

The more accessible an RPMTS intervention is, the more adoptable and scalable it is likely to be

Main intervention’s purpose set by the owner organization

Prognosis, diagnosis, wellness, monitoring or emergency alerts

The better an RPMTS intervention meets the needs of its owners (healthcare organization), the greater the chances of it being promoted and supported by management and healthcare workers

Main design approach

A user-centred approach versus technically and/or otherwise driven

The more the users are involved in the design of an RPMTS intervention, the greater its chances of meeting their needs and, hence, easily adoptable by them