Evolution of quality of life concepts and changes in their assessment in medical rehabilitation

The assessment of a patient’s quality of life (QoL) is an integral part of personalized treatment and rehabilitation programs. Although this method of assessing health status has been widely used, the past 10 years have seen prerequisites emerge for transforming this group of tools. This study reviews the evolution of concepts regarding patient QoL and changes in approaches to its assessment. Various methods are presented, ranging from questionnaires focused on social well-being to forms and scales used in routine clinical practice to monitor physical condition and determine the effectiveness of a chosen rehabilitation program. A shift towards a patient-oriented approach, replacing the previous focus on diagnosing diseases and complications, is demonstrated. A trend toward the digitalization of QoL assessment using remote monitoring systems is outlined, along with the obstacles to implementing this practice in Russian clinical settings. Studies have been identified that confirm the possibility of creating a unified system for remote assessment of patient QoL and scaling this approach.

1. Bykovshchenko G.K., Bykovshchenko A.N. Rehabilitation: the result of collaborative efforts among patients, their families, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation team. Reabilitologia / Journal of Medical Rehabilitation. 2025; 2 (4): 395–401 (in Russ.). https://doi. org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2024.33.

2. Pryde K., Lakhani A., William L., Dennett A. Palliative rehabilitation and quality of life: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024 Oct 18: spcare-2024-004972. https://doi. org/10.1136/spcare-2024-004972.

3. Blinov D.V., Sandzhieva L.N., Solopova A.G., Galkin V.N. The program of comprehensive personalized rehabilitation after surgical treatment for endometrial cancer: the results of a prospective randomized com parative study. Reabilitologia / Journal of Medical Rehabilitation. 2024; 2 (1): 93–106 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2024.6.

4. Maio M.D., Basch E., Denis F., et al. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol. 2022; 33 (9): 878–92. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.annonc.2022.04.007.

5. Simon B.A., Assel M.J., Tin A.L., et al. Association between electronic patient symptom reporting with alerts and potentially avoidable urgent care visits after ambulatory cancer surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021; 156 (8): 740–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.1798.

6. Basch E., Schrag D., Jansen J., et al. Symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes during cancer treatment: final results of the PRO-TECT cluster-randomized trial. Nat Med. 2025; 31 (4): 1225–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03507-y.

7. Tan S.Y., Sumner J., Wang Y., Wenjun Yip A. A systematic review of the impacts of remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions on safety, adherence, quality-of-life and cost-related outcomes. NPJ Digit Med. 2024; 7 (1): 192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01182-w.

8. Huhn S., Axt M., Gunga H.C., et al. The impact of wearable technologies in health research: scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2022; 10 (1): e34384. https://doi.org/10.2196/34384.

9. World Health Organization. WHOQOL Measuring Quality of Life. Available at: https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol (accessed 04.05.2026).

10. Lebo D. Some factors said to make for happiness in old age. J Clin Psychol. 1953; 9 (4): 386–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/10974679(195310)9:4<385::aid-jclp2270090418>3.0.co;2-7.

11. Neugarten B.L., Havighurst R.J., Tobin S.S. The measurement of life satisfaction. J Gerontol. 1961; 16: 134–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ geronj/16.2.134.

12. Prutkin J., Feinstein A. A history of quality of life measurements. Available at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl/424 (accessed 04.05.2026).

13. Elkinton J.R. Medicine and the quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1966; 64 (3): 711–14. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-64-3-711.

14. National Library of Medicine. National Center for Biotachnology Information. MeSH. Quality of life. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/mesh/?term=Quality+of+life (accessed 04.05.2026).

15. Pennacchini M., Bertolaso M., Elvira M.M., De Marinis M.G. A brief history of the Quality of Life: its use in medicine and in philosophy. Clin Ter. 2011; 162 (3): e99–103.

16. Strauss A.L. Chronic illness and the quality of life. AJN Am J Nurs. 1976; 76 (1): 82.

17. Bunker J.P., Wennberg J.E. Operation rates, mortality statistics and the quality of life. New Engl J Med. 1973; 289 (23): 1249–51. https://doi. org/10.1056/NEJM197312062892313.

18. Lebacqz K.A. Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion. Linacre Q. 1973; 40 (2): 109–27.

19. Weinstein M.C. Economic assessments of medical practices and technologies. Med Decis Making. 1981; 1 (4): 309–30. https://doi. org/10.1177/0272989X8100100403.

20. Donaldson C., Atkinson A., Bond J., Wright K. Should QALYs be programme-specific? J Health Econ. 1988; 7 (3): 239–57. https://doi. org/10.1016/0167-6296(88)90027-6.

21. Williams J.I., Wood-Dauphinee S. Assessing quality of life: measures and utility. In: Mosteller F., Falotico-Taylor J. (Eds) Quality of life and technology assessment: monograph of the Council on Health Care Technology. National Academies Press; 1989. https://doi. org/10.17226/1424.

22. Gill T.M., Feinstein A.R. A Critical appraisal of the quality of quality-oflife measurements. JAMA. 1994; 272 (8): 619–26. https://doi. org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045.

23. Unni E.J., Schougaard L.M.V., Aiyegbusi O.L., et al. Expert consensus on implementing patient-reported outcomes in telehealth: findings from an international Delphi study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2025; 9 (1): 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00872-7.

24. Незнанов Н.Г., Васильева А.В. Цифровизация в оказании помощи в области психического здоровья. Новые возможности для специа листов и пациентов. Национальное здравоохранение. 2023; 4 (2): 15–24. https://doi.org/10.47093/2713-069X.2023.4.2.15-24.

25. Neznanov N.G., Vasileva A.V. Digitalization in mental health care. New opportunities for specialists and patients. National Health Care (Russia). 2023; 4 (2): 15–24 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47093/2713069X.2023.4.2.15-24.

26. Shnitzer H., Chan J., Yau T., et al. The safety of telerehabilitation: systematic review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol. 2025; 12 (1): e68681. https://doi.org/10.2196/68681.

27. Peiris C.L., Shields N., Brusco N.K., et al. Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2013; 11: 198. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-198.

28. de Bakker M., den Uijl I., Ter Hoeve N., et al. Association between exercise capacity and health-related quality of life during and after cardiac rehabilitation in acute coronary syndrome patients: a substudy of the OPTICARE randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 101 (4): 650–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.11.017.

29. Vieli C., Duong H.P., Duc M., et al. Functional capacity and patientreported outcome measures after cardiac rehabilitation: a prospective study with 6-month follow-up. Swiss Med Weekly. 2025; 155 (9): 4160. https://doi.org/10.57187/s.4160.

30. Lee Y., Won M. Mediating effects of rehabilitation motivation between social support and health-related quality of life among patients with stroke. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19 (22): 15274. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijerph192215274.

31. An E.S., Suh S.R., Kim E.H. Influences of self-esteem, rehabilitation motivation on quality of life in stroke pateints with rehabilitation therapy. J Korea Acad Indust Coop Soc. 2019; 20 (3): 176–87. https://doi. org/10.5762/KAIS.2019.20.3.176.

32. Thwaites C., Rowntree N., Hodge A., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures for rehabilitation hospitals: a scoping review. Phys Ther Rev. 2023; 28 (4-6): 278–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/108331 96.2023.2272400.

33. Sagen J.S., Kjeken I., Habberstad A., et al. Patient involvement in the rehabilitation process is associated with improvement in function and goal attainment: results from an explorative longitudinal study. J Clin Med. 2024; 13 (2): 320. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020320.

34. Steinbeck V., Langenberger B., Schöner L., et al. Electronic patientreported outcome monitoring to improve quality of life after joint replacement: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6 (9): e2331301. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2023.31301.

35. Ross L.A., O’Rourke S.C., Toland G., et al. Loss to patient-reported outcome measure follow-up after hip arthroplasty and knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt Open. 2022; 3 (4): 275–83. https://doi. org/10.1302/2633-1462.34.BJO-2022-0013.R1.

36. Cöster M.C., Bremander A., Nilsdotter A. Patient-reported outcome for 17,648 patients in 5 different Swedish orthopaedic quality registers before and 1 year after surgery: an observational study. Acta Orthop. 2023; 94: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.6577.

37. Stetson A., Kim T., Li R., et al. The efficacy of postoperative visits for detecting complications in pediatric patients. Surgery. 2025; 181: 109158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2025.109158.

38. Lushaj E.B., Nelson K., Amond K., et al. Timely post-discharge telephone follow-up is a useful tool in identifying post-discharge complications patients after congenital heart surgery. Pediatr Cardiol. 2016; 37 (6): 1106–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-016-1398-3.

39. Auschra B., Euler S., Zehnder Y., et al. Long-term follow-up of HRQoL up to six years after outpatient phase-II cardiac rehabilitation. Healthcare. 2024; 12 (3): 357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ healthcare12030357.

40. Cella D., Hays R.D. A patient reported outcome ontology: conceptual issues and challenges addressed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System[®] (PROMIS[®] ). Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2022; 13: 189–97. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S371882.

41. Attafuah P.Y.A., Everink I.H.J., Halfens R.J.G., et al. Instruments used to assess quality of life of older adults in African countries: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr. 2021; 21 (1): 344. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12877-021-02262-2.

42. Siette J., Knaggs G.T., Zurynski Y., et al. Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services. BMJ Open. 2021; 11 (11): e050892. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050892.

43. Hernández-Segura N., Marcos-Delgado A., Pinto-Carral A., et al. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments and mobility: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19 (24): 16493. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416493.

44. Busija L., Pausenberger E., Haines T.P., et al. Adult measures of general health and health-related quality of life: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item (SF-36) and Short Form 12-Item (SF-12) Health Surveys, Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 6D (SF-6D), Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), and Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL). Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63 (Suppl. 11): S383–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20541.

45. Brazier J., Ara R., Rowen D., Chevrou-Severac H. A review of generic preference-based measures for use in cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017; 35 (Suppl. 1): 21–31. https://doi. org/10.1007/s40273-017-0545-x.

46. Vinyarskaya I.V., Chernikov V.V., Terletskaya R.N., et al. Validation of the russian version of a questionnaire for the assessment of utilitarian indices in pediatric practice. Stage II. Current Pediatrics. 2014; 13 (4): 20–5 (in Russ.).

47. Peto V., Jenkinson C., Fitzpatrick R. PDQ-39: a review of the development, validation and application of a Parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire and its associated measures. J Neurol. 1998; 245 (Suppl. 1): S10–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00007730.

48. Yangöz Ş.T., Turan Kavradim S., Özer Z., Boz İ. Psychometric properties of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 instrument: a systematic review using COSMIN methodology. Nurs Health Sci. 2021; 23 (4): 792–806. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12877.

49. Weldam S.W.M., Schuurmans M.J., Liu R., Lammers J.W.J. Evaluation of quality of life instruments for use in COPD care and research: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2013; 50 (5): 688–707. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.07.017.

50. Garin O., Herdman M., Vilagut G., et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with heart failure: a systematic, standardized comparison of available measures. Heart Fail Rev. 2014; 19 (3): 359–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-013-9394-7.

51. Luckett T., King M.T., Butow P.N., et al. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22 (10): 2179–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/ mdq721.

52. Khatkov I.E., Minaeva O.A., Domrachev S.A., et al. PROM a contemporary approach to assessing the quality of life of patients

53. with cancer. Therapeutic Archive. 2022; 94 (1): 122–8 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26442/00403660.2022.01.201343.

54. Ataman R., Alhasani R., Auneau-Enjalbert L., et al. The psychometric properties of the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) measurement system in neurorehabilitation populations: a systematic review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8 (1): 106. https://doi. org/10.1186/s41687-024-00743-7.

55. Cohen M.L., Lanzi A., Boulton A.J. Clinical use of PROMIS, Neuro-QoL, TBI-QoL, and other patient-reported outcome measures for individual adult clients with cognitive and language disorders. Semin Speech Lang. 2021; 42 (3): 192–210. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1731365.

56. Alarilla A., Sebire N.J., Keith J., et al. A scoping review of the electronic collection and capture of patient reported outcome measures for children and young people in the hospital setting. PLoS Digit Health. 2025; 4 (1): e0000704. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000704.

57. Glenwright B.G., Simmich J., Cottrell M., et al. Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023; 7: 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00554-2.

58. Lillekroken D., Bjørge H., Halvorsrud L., Lidal I.B. Assessing quality of life a scoping review of studies presenting quality of life instruments for informal caregivers of persons with dementia. BMC Geriatr. 2025; 25 (1): 976. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-025-06455-x.

59. Pniak B., Leszczak J., Kurczab J., et al. The efficiency of spa rehabilitation in chronic ischemic stroke patients preliminary reports. Brain Sci. 2021; 11 (4): 501. https://doi.org/10.3390/ brainsci11040501.

60. Ali H.M., Sulaiman S.K., Bello U.M., et al. Telerehabilitation in promoting home-based upper extremity exercises among stroke survivors: a pilot study. Iran Rehab J. 2024; 22 (4): 583–94. https://doi. org/10.32598/irj.22.4.1362.2.

61. Takele G.M., Sullivan T., Samaranayaka A., et al. Generic healthrelated quality of life instruments among children and adolescents in lowand middle-income countries: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2026; 15 (1): 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-03060-2.

62. NICE technology appraisal and highly specialised technologies guidance: the manual. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/ pmg36/chapter/economic-evaluation-2 (accessed 04.05.2026).

63. Ng C.A., De Abreu Lourenco R., Viney R., et al. Valuing quality of life for economic evaluations in cancer: navigating multiple methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2024; 24 (10): 1101–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2393332.

64. Petrenko D.A., Korabelnikov D.I. Methods for assessing quality of life in cancer. Reabilitologia / Journal of Medical Rehabilitation. 2023; 1 (1): 33–48 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17749/2949-5873/rehabil.2023.7.

65. van Pottelberghe S., Kupper N., Scheirlynck E., et al. Are diseasespecific patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) used in cardiogenetics? A systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024; 32 (6): 607–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01510-w.

66. Cocks K., Wells J.R., Johnson C., et al. Content validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30 for use in cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2023; 178: 128–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.10.026.

67. Helm P.C., Bauer U.M.M., Ewert P., Remmele J. Development and validation of the CHDSI questionnaire: a new tool for measuring disease-specific quality of life in children and adolescents with congenital heart defects. Medicina. 2025; 61 (7): 1311. https://doi. org/10.3390/medicina61071311.

68. Dehghani A. Development and validation of the disease specific problems questionnaire for patients with multiple sclerosis. BMC Neurol. 2021; 21 (1): 415. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-021-02442-y.

69. Tribuntceva L.V., Budnevsky A.V., Prozorova G.G., et al. The role of extrapulmonary personalized factors in asthma control. Sechenov Medical Journal. 2023; 14 (1): 27–38 (in Russ.). https://doi. org/10.47093/2218-7332.2023.14.1.27-38.

70. Churruca K., Pomare C., Ellis L.A., et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021; 24 (4): 1015–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254.

71. Bonsel J.M., Itiola A.J., Huberts A.S., et al. The use of patient-reported outcome measures to improve patient-related outcomes a systematic review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024; 22 (1): 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-024-02312-4.

72. Nolla K., Rasmussen L.V., Rothrock N.E., et al. Seamless integration of computer-adaptive patient reported outcomes into an electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform. 2024; 15 (1): 145–54. https://doi. org/10.1055/a-2235-9557.

73. Horn M.E., Reinke E.K., Mather R.C., et al. Electronic health recordintegrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21 (1): 626. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06626-7.

74. Hassett M.J., Cronin C., Tsou T.C., et al. eSyM: an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcomes-based cancer symptom management program used by six diverse health systems. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2022; 6: e2100137. https://doi.org/10.1200/ CCI.21.00137.

75. Johnston B.C., Patrick D.L., Devji T., et al. Patient-reported outcomes In: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., et al. (Eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch18.

76. Pekhova Ya.G., Martynov M.Yu., Belayeva I.A., et al. Effects of rehabilitation on functional independence in dayly life, exercise tolerance and quality of life in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Nevrologiya, neiropsikhiatriya, psikhosomatika / Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2024; 16 (2): 19–25 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.14412/2074-2711-2024-2-19-25.

77. Prichard R.A., Zhao F.L., Mcdonagh J., et al. Discrepancies between proxy estimates and patient reported, health related, quality of life: minding the gap between patient and clinician perceptions in heart failure. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30 (4): 1049–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11136-020-02722-z.

78. Annakib S., Di Méglio E., Dibert-Bekoy Y., et al. Patient versus clinician reported symptoms agreement in advanced metastatic bladder cancer patients. Cancer Med. 2025; 14 (8): e70896. https://doi. org/10.1002/cam4.70896.

79. Lapin B.R., Thompson N.R., Schuster A., Katzan I.L. Patient-proxy agreement on change in acute stroke patient-reported outcome measures: a prospective study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021; 5 (1): 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00329-7.

80. Perry M.B., Taylor S., Khatoon B., et al. Examining the effectiveness of electronic patient-reported outcomes in people with cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26 (1): e49089. https://doi.org/10.2196/49089.

81. Tymms K., O’Sullivan C., Smith T., et al. A novel electronic patientreported outcome delivery system to implement health-related quality of life measures in routine clinical care: an analysis of 5 years of experience. Front Digit Health. 2023; 4: 1074931. https://doi. org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.1074931.

82. van Engen V., Bonfrer I., Ahaus K., et al. Enhancing clinicians’ use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient care: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26: e60306. https://doi. org/10.2196/60306.

83. Novik A.A., Ionova T.I. Guide to researching quality of life in medicine. Мoscow: OLMA Media Grup; 2007: 320 pp. (in Russ.).

84. Rubricator of Clinical Guidelines. Aneurysms of thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta. 2025. Available at: https://cr.minzdrav.gov. ru/view-cr/919_1 (in Russ.) (accessed 04.05.2026).

85. Rubricator of Clinical Guidelines. HIV infection in children. 2024. Available at: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/459_2 (in Russ.) (accessed 04.05.2026).

86. Rubricator of Clinical Guidelines. Chronic pancreatitis. 2024. Available at: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/273_5 (in Russ.) (accessed 04.05.2026).

87. Рубрикатор клинических рекомендаций. Крапивница. 2023. URL: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/264_2 (дата обращения 04.05.2026).

88. Rubricator of Clinical Guidelines. Hives. 2023. Available at: https:// cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/view-cr/264_2 (in Russ.) (accessed 04.05.2026).

89. Akulova A.I., Gaydukova I.Z., Rebrov A.P. Validation of the EQ-5D-5L version in Russia. Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2018; 56 (3): 351–5 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.14412/1995-4484-2018-351-355.

90. Ionova T.I., Zinkovskaya A.V., Mayevskaya E.A., et al. Testing and validation of the Russian version of quality of life questionnaire in patients with GERD GERD-HRQL. Therapeutic Archive. 2020; 92 (12): 59–66 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.26442/00403660.2020.12.200434.

91. Bazaev V.V., Shibaev A.N., Joshi H., et al. Validation of the Russian version of the Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionnaire (USSQ) for the evaluation of quality of life and stent-related symptoms. Urologiia. 2020; 2: 5–15 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18565/urology.2020.2.5-14.

92. Omelyanovskiy V., Musina N., Ratushnyak S., et al. Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Russia. Qual Life Res. 2021; 30 (7): 1997–2007. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11136-021-02804-6.

93. Neroev V.V., Bragin A.A., Zaytseva O.V. Development of a prototype service for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy based on fundus photos using artificial intelligence methods. National Health Care (Russia). 2021; 2 (2): 64–72 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.47093/2713069X.2021.2.2.64-72.

94. Levanov V.M., Pereslegina I.A., Bezrukova V.K., Zhidkov I.M. Experience in using telemedicine technologies at paramedic and midwifery stations in rural areas with low population density. Journal of Telemedicine and eHealth. 2020; 6 (1): 26–35 (in Russ.). https://doi. org/10.29188/2542-2413-2020-6-1-26-35.

95. Butzner M., Cuffee Y. Telehealth interventions and outcomes across rural communities in the United States: narrative review. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23 (8): e29575. https://doi.org/10.2196/29575.

96. Korsunskiy D.V., Boytsov S.A., Kontsevaya A.V., et al. Clinical efficiency of remote blood pressure monitoring in real-world practice. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2025; 24 (5): 6–13 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2025-4374.

97. Kotelnikova E.V., Gridnev V.I., Posnenkova O.M., Senchikhin V.N. Feasibility study of using integrated telemedicine platform "IS-cardio" for outpatient cardiological rehabilitation: single-centered cohort study. Bulletin of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2024; 23 (1): 56–65 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.38025/2078-1962-2024-23-1-56-65.

98. Ibragimova L.I., Mikhina M.S., Solyanik E.A., et al. Clinical effectiveness of telehealth remote patient monitoring on glycemic control in type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a prospective multicenter study. Diabetes Mellitus. 2026; 29 (1): 29–39 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/.14341/DM13375.

99. Wettstein R., Sedaghat-Hamedani F., Heinze O., et al. A remote patient monitoring system with feedback mechanisms using a smartwatch: concept, implementation, and evaluation based on the activeDCM randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2024; 12: e58441. https://doi.org/10.2196/58441.

100. Vaitkevičienė G.E., Ažukaitis K., Jankauskienė A., et al. Development and integration of patient-reported measures into e-Health System: pilot feasibility study. Healthcare. 2023; 11 (16): 2290. https://doi. org/10.3390/healthcare11162290.

101. Dugas M., Fleige R., Blumenstock M.C., et al. Quality of life trajectories with integration into electronic health records for high-resolution patient outcomes: algorithm development and validation study. J Med Internet Res. 2026; 28 (1): e79834. https://doi.org/10.2196/79834.