ArticleJMIR formative research2022
Home-Based Spirometry Telemonitoring After Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Acceptability and Usability.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to Enhance the Diagnosis of Early Stages of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)? The Role of Mobile Spirometry in COPD Screening and Diagnosis-A Systematic Review.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Use of Home Spirometry for Steroid Tapering.Respirology case reports · 2026Article
- Bronchodilator Response: Utility and implications in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.Respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Pulmonary function as a continuum of risk: critical care utilization and survival after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation - a multicenter cohort study.Bone marrow transplantation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHome-based spirometry (HS) allows for the early detection of lung complications in recipients of an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (AHCT). Although the usability and acceptability of HS are critical for adherence, patient-reported outcomes of HS use remain poorly understood in this setting.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to design a longitudinal, mixed methods study to understand the usability and acceptability of HS among recipients of AHCT.
methodsStudy participants performed HS using a Bluetooth-capable spirometer that transmitted spirometry data to the study team in real time. In addition, participants completed usability questionnaires and in-depth interviews and reported their experiences with HS. Analysis of interview data was guided by the constructs of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and social influence from the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model.
resultsRecipients of AHCT found HS to be highly acceptable despite modest technological barriers. On average, participants believed that the HS was helpful in managing symptoms related to AHCT (scores ranging from 2.22 to 2.68 on a scale of 0-4) and for early detection of health-related problems (score range: 2.88-3.12). Participants viewed HS favorably and were generally supportive of continued use. No significant barriers to implementation were identified from the patient's perspective. Age and gender were not associated with the patient perception of HS.
conclusionsStudy participants found HS acceptable and easy to use. Some modifiable technical barriers to performing HS were identified; however, wider implementation of pulmonary screening is feasible from the patient's perspective.
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.