ArticleDigital health
Acceptability of the Long-Term In-Home Ventilator Engagement virtual intervention for home mechanical ventilation patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative evaluation.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical management of ventilator-assisted individuals (VAIs) was challenged by social distancing rules during the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, the Long-Term In-Home Ventilator Engagement (LIVE) Program was launched in Ontario, Canada to provide intensive digital care case management to VAIs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the acceptability of the LIVE Program hosted via a digital platform during the COVID-19 pandemic from diverse perspectives. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study (May 2020-April 2021) comprising semi-structured interviews with participants from eight home ventilation specialty centers in Ontario, Canada. We purposively recruited patients, family caregivers, and providers enrolled in LIVE. Content analysis and the theoretical concepts of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were used to interpret findings. Results: A total of 40 individuals (2 VAIs, 18 family caregivers, 20 healthcare providers) participated. Participants described LIVE as acceptable as it addressed a longstanding imperative to improve care access, ease of use, and training provided; feasible for triaging problems and sharing information; and appropriate for timeliness of provider responses, workflows, and perceived value. Negative perceptions of acceptability among healthcare providers concerned digital workload and fit with existing clinical workflows. Perceived benefits accorded to LIVE included enhanced physical and psychological safety in the home, patient-provider relations, and VAI engagement in their own care. Conclusions: Study findings identify factors influencing the LIVE Program's acceptability by patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers during pandemic conditions including enhanced access to care, ease of case management triage, and VAI safety. Findings may inform the implementation of digital health services to VAIs in non-pandemic circumstances.
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.