Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlthobiani, MA
dc.contributor.authorShuttleworth, R
dc.contributor.authorConway, J
dc.contributor.authorDainton, J
dc.contributor.authorDuckworth, A
dc.contributor.authorDa Ponte, AJ
dc.contributor.authorMandizha, J
dc.contributor.authorLanario, JW
dc.contributor.authorGibbons, MA
dc.contributor.authorLines, S
dc.contributor.authorScotton, CJ
dc.contributor.authorHurst, JR
dc.contributor.authorPorter, JC
dc.contributor.authorRussell, A-M
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-26T10:34:31Z
dc.date.issued2024-01-08
dc.date.updated2024-01-26T08:56:35Z
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION: Patients diagnosed with Interstitial Lung Diseases (ILD) use devices to self-monitor their health and well-being. Little is known about the range of devices, selection, frequency and terms of use and overall utility. We sought to quantify patients' usage and experiences with home digital devices, and further evaluate their perceived utility and barriers to adaptation. METHODS: A team of expert clinicians and patient partners interested in self-management approaches designed a 48-question cross-sectional electronic survey; specifically targeted at individuals diagnosed with ILD. The survey was critically appraised by the interdisciplinary self-management group at Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust during a 6-month validation process. The survey was open for participation between September 2021 and December 2022, and responses were collected anonymously. Data were analysed descriptively for quantitative aspects and through thematic analysis for qualitative input. RESULTS: 104 patients accessed the survey and 89/104 (86%) reported a diagnosis of lung fibrosis, including 46/89 (52%) idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with 57/89 (64%) of participants diagnosed >3 years and 59/89 (66%) female. 52/65(80%) were in the UK; 33/65 (51%) reported severe breathlessness medical research council MRC grade 3-4 and 32/65 (49%) disclosed co-morbid arthritis or joint problems. Of these, 18/83 (22%) used a hand- held spirometer, with only 6/17 (35%) advised on how to interpret the readings. Pulse oximetry devices were the most frequently used device by 35/71 (49%) and 20/64 (31%) measured their saturations more than once daily. 29/63 (46%) of respondents reported home-monitoring brought reassurance; of these, for 25/63 (40%) a feeling of control. 10/57 (18%) felt it had a negative effect, citing fluctuating readings as causing stress and 'paranoia'. The most likely help-seeking triggers were worsening breathlessness 53/65 (82%) and low oxygen saturation 43/65 (66%). Nurse specialists were the most frequent source of help 24/63 (38%). Conclusion: Patients can learn appropriate technical skills, yet perceptions of home-monitoring are variable; targeted assessment and tailored support is likely to be beneficial.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipHealth Education Englanden_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 3, No. 1, article e0000318en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000318
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/135143
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-9671-9057 (Scotton, Chris J)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-0468-3537 (Russell, Anne-Marie)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherPublic Library of Scienceen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38190384en_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.10.6084/m9.figshare.24569851en_GB
dc.rights© 2024 Althobiani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.en_GB
dc.subjectBiomedical Imagingen_GB
dc.subjectRare Diseasesen_GB
dc.subjectLungen_GB
dc.subjectClinical Researchen_GB
dc.subjectRespiratoryen_GB
dc.titleSupporting self-management for patients with Interstitial Lung Diseases: Utility and acceptability of digital devicesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2024-01-26T10:34:31Z
dc.identifier.issn2767-3170
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited States
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Public Library of Science via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionData Availability Statement: The fully de-identified research data supporting this publication are openly available as S1 Data and at 10.6084/m9.figshare.24569851en_GB
dc.identifier.journalPLOS Digital Healthen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-11-13
dcterms.dateSubmitted2023-07-06
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2024-01-08
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2024-01-26T08:56:37Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2024-01-26T10:34:33Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2024-01-08


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2024 Althobiani et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2024 Althobiani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.