ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Supporting self-management for patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases: Utility and acceptability of digital devices.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Experiences of Digital Technology Use in Interstitial Lung Disease (PRODIGY-ILD Study): Qualitative Study Using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2026Observational
- Advances and Challenges in Wearable Sensors for Health Monitoring.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2026Review
- Exploring the Priorities for Home Self-Management Among Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease: A Mixed-Methods Approach Using Q-Methodology.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The role of digital health in respiratory diseases management: a narrative review of recent literature.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Remote patient monitoring in autoimmune related interstitial lung diseases: a narrative review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPatients diagnosed with Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) use devices to self-monitor their health and well-being. Little is known about the range of devices, selection, frequency and terms of use and overall utility. We sought to quantify patients' usage and experiences with home digital devices, and further evaluate their perceived utility and barriers to adaptation.
methodsA team of expert clinicians and patient partners interested in self-management approaches designed a 48-question cross-sectional electronic survey; specifically targeted at individuals diagnosed with ILD. The survey was critically appraised by the interdisciplinary self-management group at Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust during a 6-month validation process. The survey was open for participation between September 2021 and December 2022, and responses were collected anonymously. Data were analysed descriptively for quantitative aspects and through thematic analysis for qualitative input.
results104 patients accessed the survey and 89/104 (86%) reported a diagnosis of lung fibrosis, including 46/89 (52%) idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with 57/89 (64%) of participants diagnosed >3 years and 59/89 (66%) female. 52/65(80%) were in the UK; 33/65 (51%) reported severe breathlessness medical research council MRC grade 3-4 and 32/65 (49%) disclosed co-morbid arthritis or joint problems. Of these, 18/83 (22%) used a hand- held spirometer, with only 6/17 (35%) advised on how to interpret the readings. Pulse oximetry devices were the most frequently used device by 35/71 (49%) and 20/64 (31%) measured their saturations more than once daily. 29/63 (46%) of respondents reported home-monitoring brought reassurance; of these, for 25/63 (40%) a feeling of control. 10/57 (18%) felt it had a negative effect, citing fluctuating readings as causing stress and 'paranoia'. The most likely help-seeking triggers were worsening breathlessness 53/65 (82%) and low oxygen saturation 43/65 (66%). Nurse specialists were the most frequent source of help 24/63 (38%). Conclusion: Patients can learn appropriate technical skills, yet perceptions of home-monitoring are variable; targeted assessment and tailored support is likely to be beneficial.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.