ArticleSleep2017
Patient-Reported Usability of Positive Airway Pressure Equipment Is Associated With Adherence in Older Adults.
Article in Sleep, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Short- and long-term continuous positive airway pressure usage in the post-stroke population with obstructive sleep apnea.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2019Article
- Veterans' Experiences of Support in Managing Comorbid Sleep Apnea and Type 2 Diabetes.Nursing researchArticle
- Psychological predictors of CPAP therapy adherence in obstructive sleep apnea patients: insights from the predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors model.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Study objectives: To examine the usability of positive airway pressure (PAP) devices and its association with PAP adherence among older adults with sleep-disordered breathing. Methods: We mailed questionnaires to patients aged ≥65 years prescribed PAP therapy during the prior 36 months from two large healthcare systems. Survey participants completed the Usability of Sleep Apnea Equipment-Positive Airway Pressure (USE-PAP) questionnaire, which assessed the usability of their PAP device. Other questionnaire items included demographics and self-rated health. We also abstracted adherence data (mean nightly hours of PAP use available from one site) and interface type from the electronic health record. Results: Five hundred sixty-four patients completed the survey (response rate = 33%). The mean USE-PAP score (0 = best to 100 = worst) was 20 (SD ± 20). Mean duration of PAP use (available in 189 respondents) was 5.2 hours per night (SD ± 2.0). In a nested regression model predicting nightly hours of PAP use, a 10-point (0.5 SD) increase in USE-PAP score corresponded to a 0.37 hour/night reduction in PAP use. The model including the USE-PAP score explained a significant proportion (R2 = 15%) of the variation in nightly hours of PAP use above and beyond demographics, self-reported health, and interface type (∆R2 = 12%). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that PAP usability varies among older patients and is associated with PAP adherence, above and beyond other predictors of adherence. These results support measuring and improving PAP usability to further improve PAP adherence for older patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.