ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022
Evaluation of a tactile breath pacer for sleep problems: A mixed method pilot study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Existing Meditation and Breathing Devices for Stress Reduction and Their Incorporated Stimuli: A Systematic Literature Review and Competition Analysis.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2023Review
- The effectiveness and user preferences of two tactile breathing devices in reducing stress in stressed individuals: A mixed methods study.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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sleep problems, like insomnia, are a prevalent condition associated with major health risks. Prevention and treatment of sleep problems are thus essential to preserve physical and mental health. Previous work supports the effectiveness of breathing guidance for sleep problems and recommends breathing exercises as an effective intervention for insomnia. While new technologies can support breathing guidance, such novel devices should be assessed for effectiveness and usability to facilitate implementation and continued use. The current pilot study investigates the acceptability and usability of a mobile tactile breathing device and explores its potential impact on subjective sleep quality. In this mixed-method pilot study, 39 participants tested the breathing device for one month in naturalistic circumstances. We collected their experiences, subjective sleep quality, and feedback regarding the usability of the device and the accompanying app through a survey in a pre-post design. The results show that the breathing device is an acceptable solution for sleep problems and participants particularly appreciate the standalone function and design. Nevertheless, important points of attention, such as the size of the device, were also identified. Explorative analyses suggest that subjective sleep quality improved after using the device and accompanying app. The current study supports the usability and acceptability of a tactile breath pacer and provides preliminary evidence supporting a positive impact of the technology on the sleep quality of participants. Recommendations for developers of breathing technologies and eHealth are devised based on the findings.
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.