ArticleCHEST pulmonary2025
Remote Patient Monitoring for Managing Interstitial Lung Disease: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation.
Article in CHEST pulmonary, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design of a randomized controlled trial comparing hybrid care with standard care for people with pulmonary fibrosis.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Telemedicine in chronic lung disease management: progress and prospects.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementation of home monitoring in individuals with pulmonary fibrosis.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Progressive pulmonary fibrosis: the importance of identification and intervention.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hybrid health care delivery uses a combination of in-person and telehealth visits to deliver interstitial lung disease (ILD) care efficiently and flexibly. However, assessments of ILD activity and progression can be limited during telehealth visits. Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is an effective approach to evaluating ILD trajectories. However, in the United States, there has been limited uptake of RPM into ILD care models. Research Question: Can we define patient-level facilitators and barriers to implementing RPM into routine ILD care? Study Design and Methods: RPM data from spirometers and pulse oximeters were collected weekly from participants with newly diagnosed ILD. Additional data were collected using surveys and qualitative interviews in a parallel convergent mixed-methods design, reflexively analyzed for themes, and integrated using a triangulation protocol. Results: Sixty participants had a median age of 74 years; most were male (59%), White (60.7%), and diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (50%). Adherence to weekly device use was high (90%) and participants thought RPM was an important (90%) and sustainable (87%) part of ILD care. Key barriers to RPM use included difficulty with spirometry technique, communication of results, and result interpretation. Interpretation: Our results indicate that RPM is a feasible, valuable, and sustainable component of routine ILD care. Applying an implementation science framework, patient-level barriers would be best addressed through (1) supervised device setup, (2) more efficient and frequent communication, and (3) improved patient education. Addressing these barriers may facilitate more widespread and successful implementation of RPM, with the potential to greatly improve patient engagement in 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.