Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36554954›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Lung Support Service: Implementation of a Nationwide Text Message Support Program for People with Chronic Respiratory Disease during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Rebecca Raeside, Anna C Singleton, Allyson Todd, Stephanie R Partridge, Karice K Hyun, Helen Kulas, Sally L Wootton, Marita T Dale, Jennifer A Alison, Zoe McKeough and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Rebecca RaesideEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2016-6393
Anna C SingletonEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7071-0118
Allyson ToddEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6948-9754
Stephanie R PartridgeEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5390-3922
Karice K HyunEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0164-7725
Helen KulasNSW Agency for Clinical Innovation, Sydney, NSW 2065, Australia.
Sally L WoottonChronic Disease Community Rehabilitation Service, Northern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW 2103, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9133-1627
Marita T DaleDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7266-6333
Jennifer A AlisonDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Zoe McKeoughDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Renae J McNamaraDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Lissa SpencerDepartment of Physiotherapy, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2358-0736
Christine JenkinsInstitute of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.
Julie RedfernEngagement and Co-Design Research Hub, Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2145, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8707-5563

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 pandemic lockdowns led to the closure of most in-person pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Australia. Text message programs are effective for delivering health support to aid the self-management of people with chronic diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of a six-month pre-post text message support program (Texting for Wellness: Lung Support Service), and the enablers and barriers to its adoption and implementation.

methodsThis mixed-methods pre-post study used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the Texting for Wellness: Lung Support Service, which is an automated six-month text message support program that included evidence-based lifestyle, disease-self management and COVID-19-related information. Reach was measured by the proportion of participant enrolments and demographic characteristics. Adoption enablers and barriers were measured using text message response data and a user feedback survey (five-point Likert scale questions and free-text responses). Implementation was evaluated to determine fidelity including text message delivery data, opt-outs, and intervention costs to promote and deliver the program.

resultsIn total, 707/1940 (36.4%) participants enrolled and provided e-consent, with a mean age (±standard deviation) of 67.9 (±9.2) years old (range: 23-87 years). Of participants who provided feedback, (326/707) most 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that the text messages were easy to understand (98.5%), helpful them to feel supported (92.3%) and helped them to manage their health (88.0%). Factors influencing engagement included a feeling of support and reducing loneliness, and its usefulness for health self-management. Messages were delivered as planned (93.7% successfully delivered) with minimal participant dropouts (92.2% retention rate) and low cost ($AUD24.48/participant for six months). A total of 2263 text message replies were received from 496 unique participants. There were no reported adverse events.

conclusionTexting for Wellness: Lung Support Service was implemented quickly, had a broad reach, with high retention and acceptability among participants. The program was low cost and required minimal staff oversight, which may facilitate future implementation. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of text messaging for the improvement of lung health outcomes and strategies for long-term pulmonary rehabilitation program maintenance.

Indexed as

COVID-19Respiration DisordersText MessagingAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicable Disease ControlHumansLungMiddle AgedPandemicsYoung Adultchronic respiratory diseaseCOVID-19digital healthimplementation sciencepublic healthpulmonary rehabilitationtext messaging

Identifiers

PMID36554954
PMCPMC9779082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.