Sheryl Flynn, Christopher L Mosher, Sharon Cornelison, Erica Rao, Kimberly A Metzler, William Pu, John Davies, Connie Paladenech, Daniel Doyle, Neil MacIntyre, Jill Ohar
{"title":"具有远程治疗监控功能的软件支持虚拟肺康复的可行性、可用性和试点疗效研究。","authors":"Sheryl Flynn, Christopher L Mosher, Sharon Cornelison, Erica Rao, Kimberly A Metzler, William Pu, John Davies, Connie Paladenech, Daniel Doyle, Neil MacIntyre, Jill Ohar","doi":"10.2147/COPD.S484558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Fewer than 3% of adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) attend in-person, center-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) despite demonstrated health benefits and reduction in mortality. This study evaluated the feasibility and usability of a novel home-based, virtual PR (V-PR) intervention compared to center-based PR (C-PR). The virtual PR intervention was supported by remote therapeutic monitoring (V-PR+RTM; Blue Marble Platform, Blue Marble Health, Altadena, CA). Additionally, we collected data on the 6-Minute Walk Test to explore the efficacy of the V-PR compared to C-PR.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Adults with stable COPD referred for PR were recruited. The participants self-selected C-PR or V-PR and were provided a 6-8-week personalized exercise and COPD self-management educational program. In addition, weekly phone contacts with the V-PR group were made. Feasibility was measured using qualitative analysis of adherence, reasons for withdrawal, and self-reported barriers to using the software at home. Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Efficacy was evaluated with the 6 minute Walk Test (6MWT) and various functional performance and patient-centered health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight participants were enrolled, and 40 (83.3%) completed the intervention, n=17 in the C-PR group and n=23 in the V-PR group. Four participants from each group withdrew due to reasons related to health issues (appendicitis, thrush, COVID, back pain) or the health status of their spouse, no-shows, and time constraints. Adherence to the exercise dose (3x/week) and educational offerings were >80% in both groups. Participants in the V-PR group scored the software as having high usability. In both groups, 6MWT distance improved significantly, as did scores on the CAT and SGRQ. No adverse events were reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A software-enabled virtual PR program with remote therapeutic monitoring is feasible, usable, and effective. It could offer an alternative model that increases PR uptake for those unable or unwilling to attend in-person, center-based PR.</p>","PeriodicalId":48818,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","volume":"20 ","pages":"231-241"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792638/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility, Usability, and Pilot Efficacy Study of a Software-Enabled, Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation with Remote Therapeutic Monitoring.\",\"authors\":\"Sheryl Flynn, Christopher L Mosher, Sharon Cornelison, Erica Rao, Kimberly A Metzler, William Pu, John Davies, Connie Paladenech, Daniel Doyle, Neil MacIntyre, Jill Ohar\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/COPD.S484558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Fewer than 3% of adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) attend in-person, center-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) despite demonstrated health benefits and reduction in mortality. This study evaluated the feasibility and usability of a novel home-based, virtual PR (V-PR) intervention compared to center-based PR (C-PR). The virtual PR intervention was supported by remote therapeutic monitoring (V-PR+RTM; Blue Marble Platform, Blue Marble Health, Altadena, CA). Additionally, we collected data on the 6-Minute Walk Test to explore the efficacy of the V-PR compared to C-PR.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Adults with stable COPD referred for PR were recruited. The participants self-selected C-PR or V-PR and were provided a 6-8-week personalized exercise and COPD self-management educational program. In addition, weekly phone contacts with the V-PR group were made. Feasibility was measured using qualitative analysis of adherence, reasons for withdrawal, and self-reported barriers to using the software at home. Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Efficacy was evaluated with the 6 minute Walk Test (6MWT) and various functional performance and patient-centered health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight participants were enrolled, and 40 (83.3%) completed the intervention, n=17 in the C-PR group and n=23 in the V-PR group. Four participants from each group withdrew due to reasons related to health issues (appendicitis, thrush, COVID, back pain) or the health status of their spouse, no-shows, and time constraints. Adherence to the exercise dose (3x/week) and educational offerings were >80% in both groups. Participants in the V-PR group scored the software as having high usability. In both groups, 6MWT distance improved significantly, as did scores on the CAT and SGRQ. No adverse events were reported in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A software-enabled virtual PR program with remote therapeutic monitoring is feasible, usable, and effective. It could offer an alternative model that increases PR uptake for those unable or unwilling to attend in-person, center-based PR.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"231-241\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11792638/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S484558\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S484558","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Feasibility, Usability, and Pilot Efficacy Study of a Software-Enabled, Virtual Pulmonary Rehabilitation with Remote Therapeutic Monitoring.
Objective: Fewer than 3% of adults with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) attend in-person, center-based pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) despite demonstrated health benefits and reduction in mortality. This study evaluated the feasibility and usability of a novel home-based, virtual PR (V-PR) intervention compared to center-based PR (C-PR). The virtual PR intervention was supported by remote therapeutic monitoring (V-PR+RTM; Blue Marble Platform, Blue Marble Health, Altadena, CA). Additionally, we collected data on the 6-Minute Walk Test to explore the efficacy of the V-PR compared to C-PR.
Patients and methods: Adults with stable COPD referred for PR were recruited. The participants self-selected C-PR or V-PR and were provided a 6-8-week personalized exercise and COPD self-management educational program. In addition, weekly phone contacts with the V-PR group were made. Feasibility was measured using qualitative analysis of adherence, reasons for withdrawal, and self-reported barriers to using the software at home. Usability was measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Efficacy was evaluated with the 6 minute Walk Test (6MWT) and various functional performance and patient-centered health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires.
Results: Forty-eight participants were enrolled, and 40 (83.3%) completed the intervention, n=17 in the C-PR group and n=23 in the V-PR group. Four participants from each group withdrew due to reasons related to health issues (appendicitis, thrush, COVID, back pain) or the health status of their spouse, no-shows, and time constraints. Adherence to the exercise dose (3x/week) and educational offerings were >80% in both groups. Participants in the V-PR group scored the software as having high usability. In both groups, 6MWT distance improved significantly, as did scores on the CAT and SGRQ. No adverse events were reported in either group.
Conclusion: A software-enabled virtual PR program with remote therapeutic monitoring is feasible, usable, and effective. It could offer an alternative model that increases PR uptake for those unable or unwilling to attend in-person, center-based PR.
期刊介绍:
An international, peer-reviewed journal of therapeutics and pharmacology focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies and reviews in COPD. Special focus will be given to the pathophysiological processes underlying the disease, intervention programs, patient focused education, and self management protocols. This journal is directed at specialists and healthcare professionals