Experience of Using Electronic Inhaler Monitoring Devices for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease or Asthma: Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Electronic inhaler monitoring devices (EIMDs) can enhance medication adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, yet patient perceptions and experiences with these devices vary widely. A systematic qualitative synthesis is required to comprehensively understand patient perspectives on EIMDs, to lay the foundation for developing strategies to improve patient compliance. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate qualitative studies on the experiences of patients with COPD and asthma using EIMDs, providing insights to support their clinical application and improve patient engagement. Methods: This review synthesized qualitative data from reports found through a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PsycInfo from January 1983 to July 2024. The reports assessed patient experiences with EIMDs for COPD and asthma. The quality of the included reports was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program criteria developed by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, UK. Results: A total of 7 reports were included, encompassing data from 44 patients with COPD and 146 with asthma. Findings were organized into 9 sub-themes and 3 themes: positive experiences with EIMDs (usability and easy acceptance, enhanced self-management); stresses and challenges of using these devices (negative emotional stress, device trust issues, social difficulties, economic burdens, and technical challenges); and patient expectations from these devices (expectations related to device construction and function and external support). Conclusions: Patients have positive experiences using electronic monitoring devices for inhalation devices but also face various social, psychological, and technical challenges. Health care workers should consider patient experiences with EIMDs to tailor these devices to patient needs, ultimately enhancing device acceptance and adherence. Further research should focus on increasing EIMDs convenience and usability for patients with COPD and asthma.
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 | 0.048 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".