Use of Home-Based Connected Devices in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis for the Early Detection and Treatment of Pulmonary Exacerbations: Protocol for a Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection of pulmonary exacerbations (PEx) in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is important to quickly trigger treatment and reduce respiratory damage. We hypothesized that using home-based and wearable connected devices (CDs) and educating patients to react in case of abnormal variations in a set of parameters would allow patients to detect and manage their PEx early with their care team. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to assess the feasibility and appropriate conditions of a new PEx management process from the users' point of view by analyzing the experience of patients and of CF center teams regarding the education program, the use of CDs, and the relationship between the patient and the care team during PEx management. METHODS: We have been conducting a multicenter pilot study involving 36 patients with CF aged ≥12 years. The intervention was divided into 3 phases. In phase 1 (3 months), patients were equipped with CDs, and their parameters were collected on 3 nonconsecutive days each week. Phase 2 involved the development of a "React to PEx" educational program aimed at providing patients with a personalized action plan. A training session to the educational program was organized for the physicians. Physicians then determined the patients' personalized alert thresholds by reviewing the data collected during phase 1 and their patients' clinical history. In phase 3 (12 months), patients were educated by the physician during a clinic visit, and their action plan for reacting in timely fashion to their PEx signs was defined. Education and action plans were revised during clinic visits. At the end of the project, the patients' experience was collected during semistructured interviews with a researcher as part of the qualitative study. The experience of CF teams was collected during focus groups using a semistructured guide once all their patients had finished the study. The interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim to be analyzed. Data from educational sessions were collected throughout the educational program to be put into perspective with the learnings reported by patients. Analyses are being led by 2 researchers using NVivo (QSR International). RESULTS: The study received the favorable reception of the Committee for the Protection of Persons (CPP NORTH WEST III) on June 10, 2017 (#2017-A00723-50). Out of the 36 patients included in phase 1, 27 were educated and entered phase 3. We completed collection of all data from the patients and care providers. Qualitative analysis will provide a better understanding of users' experience on the conditions of data collection, how useful CDs are for detecting PEx, how useful the PEx action plan is for reacting quickly, what patients learned about PEx management, and the conditions for this PEx management to be sustainable in routine care. CONCLUSIONS: This study will open new perspectives for further research into the implementation of an optimal PEx care process in the organization of care teams in order to support patient self-management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03304028; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT03304028. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/14552.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".