ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2021
Reflexive thematic analysis exploring stakeholder experiences of virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (VIPAR).
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Participants' Experiences of Digital Health Interventions With Qualitative Methods: Guidance for Researchers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Role of digital health in pulmonary rehabilitation and beyond: shaping the future.ERJ open research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo enable greater availability of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), video-conferencing technology was employed to link a community site to a standard outpatient PR service to deliver the programme closer to those with chronic respiratory disease. The service was called virtual pulmonary rehabilitation (VIPAR). To understand the experiences of those involved in this service, this study aimed to answer the question: How do the different stakeholders that interact with VIPAR experience the programme?
methodsFocus groups were conducted with people with chronic lung disease attending either the community or outpatient PR site, in addition to the staff involved in the running of the PR groups. A total of five focus groups were conducted. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.
resultsParticipants who received VIPAR were positive regarding the programme and described the benefits of the service. Additionally, participants discussed the trade-off between convenience and relatedness. Staff described barriers to the service and solutions that could be employed to mitigate these, including greater training, organisation and understanding of risk. DISCUSSION: Using technology to increase the availability of PR is acceptable to the stakeholders involved, providing problems and organisational issues are resolved with training.
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.