Table 1.

Dimension and variables considered

Dimension/variable	Description	Practical relevance to the review
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