ArticleChronic respiratory disease
Acceptability of a digital pulmonary rehabilitation app as an adjunct or alternative to usual care for people with chronic lung diseases: A qualitative study of patients' views and experiences.
Article in Chronic respiratory disease. 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.
- Exploring Health Literacy Needs in Different Stages of Older Patients with COPD: An in-Depth Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- Digital exclusion faced by people living with chronic respiratory disease: Challenges, implications and solutions.Chronic respiratory diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundCentre-PR may not be accessible for people living distant from PR centres. Remote digital PR may have equivalent benefits to centre-PR; however, previous trials were potentially biased towards digitally literate patients, and largely excluded participants with a preference for centre-PR. There is limited data on the real-world implementation of, and acceptability for, Digital-PR alone or as an adjunct to other models of PR.ObjectivesTo gather patients' views about the acceptability of Active+me REMOTE, a digital pulmonary rehabilitation app (Digital-PR).MethodsA qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured interviews with a subset (n = 15) of patients in a mixed method, feasibility study of a hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation, blending Digital-PR with other models of PR. Transcribed data were coded descriptively using Braun and Clarkes' methodology, data interpretation was facilitated through a Miro virtual whiteboard.ResultsThere was appreciation for the concept of Digital-PR, indicated by positive responses in the domains of "friends and family recommendation," "intention to continue using the app," and "privacy concerns." Benefits were reported by two participants who had declined centre-based PR. The app was rated low regarding user-friendliness. Challenges in understanding/using the app and a perception of challenges for others were reported and were associated with poor digital literacy and tech savviness. High digital skills did not predict a favourable assessment of the app as user-friendly.DiscussionWhilst there was a general appreciation for the concept of digital PR as an adjunct or alternative to traditional centre-based PR, the app did not appear to be user-friendly, nor acceptable to people with low digital literacy. The findings have implications for the wider routine implementation of Digital-PR.
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.