ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2026
Patients' preferences and perceptions of point-of-care technologies: Survey results from the lung disease community.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Point-of-care technology (POCT) has expanded rapidly, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, less is known about which POCT applications and features patients and caregivers prioritize for lung disease management. Methods: We refined a patient-facing survey based on feedback from an online focus group recruited through community and advocacy volunteer networks. The survey was then administered via ResearchMatch to uncompensated U.S. volunteers, who indicated interest in lung disease research (April 1 to May 14, 2025; 6,333 invitations). POCT perceptions were measured via a 10-point Likert scale. Results: We received 214 responses (3.4% response rate). Respondents were predominantly patients (79%), female (71%), and older than 60 years (59%). Mean ratings suggested strong perceived benefits across nine POCT benefits and low concern across most drawbacks. The greatest concern was insurance coverage for POCT-associated costs (mean score: 6.7/10). Obstructive lung conditions were most frequently prioritized for future POCT applications. Conclusion: Among a national sample of ResearchMatch volunteers affected by lung disease, interest in POCT was high, and insurance coverage remained the most salient concern. By describing preferences and concerns of patients, this study informs future design, regulatory approval, and clinical integration. These findings provide evidence for POCT developers, clinicians, and policymakers focused on improving patient-centered care.
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.