The Potential Use and Value of a Wearable Monitoring Bracelet for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Qualitative Study Investigating the Patient and Health Care Professional Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The occurrence of exacerbations has major effects on the health of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Monitoring devices that measure (vital) parameters hold promise for timely identification and treatment of exacerbations. Stakeholders' perspectives on the use of monitoring devices are of importance for the successful development and implementation of a device. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the potential use and value of a wearable monitoring bracelet (MB) for patients with COPD at high risk for exacerbation. The perspectives of health care professionals as well as patients were examined, both immediately after hospitalization and over a longer period. Furthermore, potential facilitators and barriers to the use and implementation of an MB were explored. METHODS: Data for this qualitative study were collected from January to April 2023. A total of 11 participants (eg, n=6 health care professionals [HCPs], 2 patients, and 3 additional patients) participated. In total, 2 semistructured focus groups were conducted via video calls; 1 with HCPs of various professional backgrounds and 1 with patients. In addition, 3 semistructured individual interviews were held with patients. The interviews and focus groups addressed attitudes, wishes, needs, as well as factors that could either support or impede the potential MB use. Data from interviews and focus groups were coded and analyzed according to the principles of the framework method. RESULTS: HCPs and patients both predominantly emphasized the importance of an MB in terms of promptly identifying exacerbations by detecting deviations from normal (vital) parameters, and subsequently alerting users. According to HCPs, this is how an MB should support the self-management of patients. Most participants did not anticipate major differences in value and use of an MB between the short-term and the long-term periods after hospitalization. Facilitators of the potential use and implementation of an MB that participants highlighted were ease of use and some form of support for patients in using an MB and interpreting the data. HCPs as well as patients expressed concerns about potential costs as a barrier to use and implementation. Another barrier that HCPs mentioned, was the prerequisite of digital literacy for patients to be able to interpret and react to the data from an MB. CONCLUSIONS: HCPs and patients both recognize that an MB could be beneficial and valuable to patients with COPD at high risk for exacerbation, in the short as well as the long term. In particular, they perceived value in supporting self-management of patients with COPD. Stakeholders would be able to use the obtained insights in support of the effective implementation of MBs in COPD patient care, which can potentially improve health care and the overall well-being of patients with COPD.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".