ArticleJMIR formative research2025
A Digital, Self-Management Behavior Change Intervention for People With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience a range of limitations, which have a significant effect on their health. Self-management and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) are key treatments for people with COPD; however, barriers often limit their uptake and adherence. Objective: To overcome these barriers, a digital self-management intervention called PocketMedic (PM) was developed and evaluated in people with COPD alongside, and in addition, to PR. Methods: A total of 53 participants were recruited to 1 of 3 groups: PM and PR, PM, or PR. Data were collected at baseline and 7 weeks (after the interventions had finished). Questionnaires on health-related quality of life, self-management knowledge, and disease knowledge were collected. Multivariate analysis of variances and ANOVAs were used to analyze the data. Results: The analyses found that the improvements in those receiving PM were not statistically significantly different from those receiving PR, indicating that PM may replicate the benefits underpinning self-management behaviors observed in those attending PR. However, there were no additional benefits when participants received PM and PR in combination. Conclusions: PM may be a useful treatment to support COPD self-management, especially when barriers prevent people with COPD receiving traditional services such as PR. The quantitative results suggest that PM may be less beneficial when delivered alongside PR. Feedback from participants indicated that they would prefer to receive PM while they were on the waiting list for PR, to support them during this time and alleviate the apprehensions associated with attending PR. Implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
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.