ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2025
How Patients With Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Perceive Respiratory Interventions: A Mixed-Methods Study to Inform Implementation Efforts.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease that commonly leads to respiratory failure. Early respiratory interventions that may improve symptoms and outcomes are underused when prescribed. We sought to characterize patient perspectives and preferences for respiratory care to enable identification of implementation strategies to improve the uptake of ALS respiratory interventions. Methods: A prospective multicenter mixed-methods observational study was conducted using semistructured interviews of participants recently diagnosed with ALS at 4 academic centers in the United States. Eligible patients were those with an ALS diagnosis in the previous 12 months, forced vital capacity <80% predicted normal, or presence of dyspnea or orthopnea. Results: Twenty-four patients with ALS were interviewed. Ten participants were using some form of respiratory therapy, including 8 using noninvasive ventilation (NIV). The most endorsed factors related to openness to initiate respiratory therapy were a doctor's recommendation and abnormal pulmonary function test results. The most commonly endorsed preferences for learning about a respiratory device included kinesthetic and reading. Descriptions of lung volume recruitment were received with more openness than of NIV. For those not prescribed NIV, reasons for hesitancy to start NIV included fear of mask discomfort, claustrophobia, and lack of perceived benefit. Perceptions about NIV differed in participants identifying as "proactive" rather than "reactive" with their health. Discussion: Patients in the first year after ALS diagnosis have variable receptiveness to respiratory care. These patients place different weights on the factors supporting NIV and may have different educational needs about respiratory interventions. Implementation strategies for respiratory care interventions in ALS should consider patients' motivations for adopting interventions such as NIV, provide multiple educational formats, and identify barriers to incorporating home respiratory care.
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.