ArticleChronic respiratory disease
Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on telehealth in the care of interstitial lung disease.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Implementation of a Technology-Facilitated Hypertension Model in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Realist Evaluation of Staff Experiences.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond scarring: a next-generation vision for pulmonary fibrosis management.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
- Remote patient monitoring in autoimmune related interstitial lung diseases: a narrative review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundWhile telehealth has been used for specialist care during the COVID-19 pandemic, its benefits and barriers to use for delivering care in interstitial lung disease (ILD) remain unclear. We aimed to explore perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards telehealth use in ILD.MethodThis qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was undertaken in 18 patients with ILD from a single quaternary ILD centre and 18 HCPs of four different disciplines from various ILD centres around Australia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded by two investigators independently using thematic analysis. Themes were developed by consensus.ResultsPatients and HCPs had experienced telehealth via video and telephone, predominantly for teleconsultation and/or telerehabilitation. For patients, benefits included provision of ongoing access to healthcare and significant reduction in travel. Healthcare professionals reported teleconsultations played an important role in patient follow-up rather than at initial contact. Concerns of suboptimal rapport and communication and a lack of physical examination were raised by both groups. Individual patient suitability, improvement in technological platform and support, and improved workflow for clinicians were important factors for utilisation of telehealth. Patients were open to the use of home monitoring devices, however, HCPs felt further research was required prior to clinical implementation.ConclusionThis study highlights positive and negative experiences of telehealth for patients and HCPs in the management of ILD . It also identifies areas for improvement to create a tailored telehealth model for ILD care.
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.