SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Experience of Using Electronic Inhaler Monitoring Devices for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Asthma: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital, remotely delivered management interventions for adult asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electronic inhaler monitoring devices (EIMDs) can enhance medication adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, yet patient perceptions and experiences with these devices vary widely. A systematic qualitative synthesis is required to comprehensively understand patient perspectives on EIMDs, to lay the foundation for developing strategies to improve patient compliance. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate qualitative studies on the experiences of patients with COPD and asthma using EIMDs, providing insights to support their clinical application and improve patient engagement. Methods: This review synthesized qualitative data from reports found through a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo from January 1983 to July 2024. The reports assessed patient experiences with EIMDs for COPD and asthma. The quality of the included reports was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program criteria developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK. Results: A total of 7 reports were included, encompassing data from 44 patients with COPD and 146 with asthma. Findings were organized into 9 sub-themes and 3 themes: positive experiences with EIMDs (usability and easy acceptance, enhanced self-management); stresses and challenges of using these devices (negative emotional stress, device trust issues, social difficulties, economic burdens, and technical challenges); and patient expectations from these devices (expectations related to device construction and function and external support). Conclusions: Patients have positive experiences using electronic monitoring devices for inhalation devices but also face various social, psychological, and technical challenges. Health care workers should consider patient experiences with EIMDs to tailor these devices to patient needs, ultimately enhancing device acceptance and adherence. Further research should focus on increasing EIMDs convenience and usability for patients with COPD and asthma.
Indexed as
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.