Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42641073›Full record

Observational studyJMIR human factors2026

Patient Experiences of Digital Technology Use in Interstitial Lung Disease (PRODIGY-ILD Study): Qualitative Study Using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.

Emer Gunne, Alessandro Franciosi, Cormac McCarthy, Michael P Keane, Peter Doran, Sinead Holden

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Emer GunneClinical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, D04T6F4, Ireland, 353 (1) 2214000.ORCID 0000-0002-6939-1586
Alessandro FranciosiClinical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, D04T6F4, Ireland, 353 (1) 2214000.ORCID 0000-0002-4241-8718
Cormac McCarthyClinical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, D04T6F4, Ireland, 353 (1) 2214000.ORCID 0000-0003-2896-5210
Michael P KeaneSt. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-4507-0742
Peter DoranClinical Research Centre, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Elm Park, Dublin, 4, D04T6F4, Ireland, 353 (1) 2214000.ORCID 0000-0003-2064-5335
Sinead HoldenBelfield, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy & Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7314-2152

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital health technology enables collection of continuous physiological and behavioral data from participants in clinical trials. This supports hybrid trial designs, potentially reducing clinic visits and participant burden for patient monitoring. Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is characterized by an unpredictable clinical course, creating a need for new treatments and more sensitive approaches to assessing treatment effectiveness, disease progression, and clinically meaningful trial end points. Objective: This study aimed to explore the experiences of individuals with ILD using digital tools in a clinical study to inform digital health-enabled clinical research. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted within the PRODIGY-ILD (Predicting Outcomes using Digital Technology in Interstitial Lung Disease) cohort, a prospective observational study using wearable devices and electronic patient-reported outcome measures for a planned 3 years of longitudinal monitoring. Participants were recruited from a specialist outpatient ILD clinic. A topic guide was developed iteratively, and individual semistructured interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications, Inc) and/or telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with NVivo software (Lumivero). Results: Fifteen of the final 20 participants recruited to the PRODIGY-ILD study consented and completed interviews. Four key themes were identified, highlighting how trust, digital literacy, participant-initiated engagement with data, and illness burden shape sustained participation in digital health-enabled clinical research: (1) trust and altruism override data concerns: confidence in researchers' data handling and a desire to contribute enabled data sharing; (2) navigating digital tools: friction and flexibility: digital literacy, usability, and device compatibility varied, but participants were able to use workarounds to maintain engagement; (3) participant-initiated engagement with wearable data: participants moved from passive to active engagement, in many cases integrating devices into daily routines; and (4) life-limiting illness as a constraint on digital trial participation: managing symptoms and severe comorbidities reduces motivation and engagement with study technology. Conclusions: Despite participants' motivations to contribute data to research, engagement was shaped by usability, participant-initiated engagement, and the constraints of living with chronic illness. There is a need for patient-centered design, tailored support, and flexible trial procedures to optimize adherence in digital health-enabled clinical research.

Indexed as

Digital TechnologyLung Diseases, InterstitialAgedDigital HealthFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresProspective StudiesQualitative ResearchRemote Patient Monitoringclinical trialsdigital technologyinterstitial lung diseasequalitative thematic analysisremote monitoring

Identifiers

PMID42641073
PMCPMC13505885

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.