ArticleSleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society2026
Exploring the impact of a medical device recall on individuals with obstructive sleep apnea and healthcare providers: a qualitative study.
Article in Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study Objectives: To understand how the Philips positive airway pressure device recall affected patient experiences, clinical practice, and health system responses. Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews with individuals with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), physicians, respiratory therapists, and health system leaders from November 2022 to August 2023. Emailed responses from Health Canada were also incorporated. Interviews explored participants' experiences with the recall announcement and communication, their own responses and perceptions of actions taken by others, the overall impact of the recall and suggestions for improving future recall processes. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach with iterative coding and team-based analysis. Results: We interviewed 47 participants (16 individuals with OSA, 10 physicians, 17 public or private respiratory therapists, 5 health system leaders). Four domains emerged: recall communication, execution, lived experiences, and policy context. Across groups, participants described a fragmented and poorly coordinated recall process with unclear accountability. Participants reported confusion due to inadequate information from Philips. Responsibility for notifying patients and device tracing shifted largely to healthcare providers and vendors, while replacement processes were disorganized and frustrating. Individuals with OSA experienced emotional distress and decisional uncertainty regarding therapy continuation. Providers described moral distress due to limited ability to support patients adequately, and vendors reported logistical and financial strain. While regulatory authorities indicated that standard procedures were followed, participants perceived these to be discordant from the recall process, contributing to erosion of trust. Conclusions: The Philips positive airway pressure device recall exposed gaps between regulatory frameworks and real-world implementation, with broad individual and system-level impacts. Future recalls should prioritize accountability, coordination, and patient-centered support.
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.