Investigation of the Impact of Wellinks on the Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Interventional Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wellinks is a remote disease management solution that provides novel chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care delivery. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the satisfaction, engagement, and clinical outcomes of Wellinks participants. This study also investigated the cadence of health coaching for patients with COPD. METHODS: A 24-week interventional study was conducted by Wellinks and the COPD Foundation in 2022. Adults with COPD were recruited by the COPD Foundation in the United States and determined to be eligible if they had phone and internet access, owned a smartphone, and were not currently participating in pulmonary rehabilitation. All study participants provided written informed consent. The Wellinks solution included remote health coaching, pulmonary rehabilitation, and group education; participants were provided the Wellinks app and smart spirometry and pulse oximetry devices. Participants were offered 6 coaching sessions in the first 12 weeks. For the second 12-week period, participants either reduced frequency or discontinued coaching; all other components of the Wellinks solution remained unchanged. The COPD Self-Efficacy Scale, Modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale, pulmonary function, pulse oximetry, and patient-reported healthcare resource utilization were the clinical outcome measures. Nonclinical outcomes included engagement and satisfaction with Wellinks and net promoter score. RESULTS: In total, 141 adults consented and completed Wellinks onboarding; 84.4% (n=119) of whom remained engaged throughout the 24-week study. Participants had a mean age of 70 (SD 7.8; range 48-88) years, and 55.7% (n=78) were female. Most participants (n=119, 84.4%) completed all 6 coaching sessions during the first 12-week period. Compliance with spirometer and pulse oximeter use was 82.3% and 89.4%, respectively, at week 1 but waned over the study period to 8.5% and 9.2%, respectively, at the end of the study. Participants indicated a high degree of satisfaction with Wellinks, with 95.5% (n=85) and 91% (n=81) of participants indicating that they agreed or strongly agreed that the educational content and health coaching, respectively, were valuable. At the end of the study, the net promoter score was +64 and +55 in the coaching continuation and discontinuation arms, respectively. A significant improvement from baseline to end of the study was observed in the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale total score (P<.001) and domain scores (P<.001 for each domain). In total, 35.1% (n=27) of participants improved by at least 1 category of change on the 5-point Modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale from baseline to week 24. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed the feasibility of using a remote model of care delivery to support people living with COPD. The insights gained in this study have allowed for further refinement and personalization of the Wellinks care model. Findings related to the combined use of technology and personal care delivery should be considered by others developing remote disease management tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05259280; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05259280.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".