ArticleERJ open research2025
Feasibility of a real-world digital hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation model using a smartphone app.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. 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.
- Hybrid pulmonary rehabilitation: alternative models to support centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- 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.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is interest in digital technology-enabled models of pulmonary rehabilitation (Digital-PR) as a means of increasing capacity, uptake and accessibility. However, there are little data on real-world implementation or how Digital-PR could support other models of pulmonary rehabilitation delivery. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods, feasibility study to evaluate the acceptability of a hybrid model of pulmonary rehabilitation (Hybrid-PR) blending Digital-PR with traditional, supervised pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). To determine acceptability, we measured engagement and use of the app and conducted patient interviews. We assessed differences in PR completion, number of scheduled sessions and staff time between Hybrid-PR and a propensity-matched control group attending PR without Digital-PR (Control-PR). Results: Of 69 people undergoing Hybrid-PR, 87% opted for in-person, centre-based care and 13% for home-based care (10% supported by video-teleconferencing, 3% supported by telephone). 86% activated Digital-PR at least once, but only 35% activated regularly (at least weekly for 8 weeks). 88% never accessed the exercise components of Digital-PR. There were no significant differences in PR completion rates, number of supervised PR sessions, nor staff time in Hybrid-PR when compared to Control-PR. Both patients and staff identified digital literacy, limited flexibility to adapt/tailor Digital-PR and increased time-commitment as potential barriers. Conclusion: Hybrid-PR was not considered acceptable due to intervention fidelity and limited patient engagement with Digital-PR. Hybrid-PR was not associated with reduction in scheduled supervised sessions. Poor digital literacy is an important barrier to implementation of Digital-PR in the real-world setting.
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.