| Literature DB >> 23049549 |
Jonathan Tang1, Allison Mandrusiak, Trevor Russell.
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective treatment for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, access to these services is limited especially in rural and remote areas. Telerehabilitation has the potential to deliver pulmonary rehabilitation programs to these communities. The aim of this study was threefold: to establish the technical feasibility of transmitting real-time pulse oximetry data, determine the validity of remote measurements compared to conventional face-to-face measures, and evaluate the participants' perception of the usability of the technology. Thirty-seven healthy individuals participated in a single remote pulmonary rehabilitation exercise session, conducted using the eHAB telerehabilitation system. Validity was assessed by comparing the participant's oxygen saturation and heart rate with the data set received at the therapist's remote location. There was an 80% exact agreement between participant and therapist data sets. The mean absolute difference and Bland and Altman's limits of agreement fell within the minimum clinically important difference for both oxygen saturation and heart rate values. Participants found the system easy to use and felt confident that they would be able to use it at home. Remote measurement of pulse oximetry data for a pulmonary rehabilitation exercise session was feasible and valid when compared to conventional face-to-face methods.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23049549 PMCID: PMC3462379 DOI: 10.1155/2012/798791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Telemed Appl ISSN: 1687-6415
Figure 1Application of the wireless Bluetooth pulse oximeter module (Onyx II 9560, Nonin Medical Inc., Plymouth, MN).
Statistical comparison between data logged at the participant (local) and therapist (remote) sites.
| Parameter | Mean absolute difference (SD) | Limits of agreement | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | ||
| Heart Rate (bpm) | 0.21 (1.46) | −2.90 | 2.89 |
| SpO2 (%) | 0.04 (0.34) | −0.67 | 0.67 |
Figure 2Participant Satisfaction Questionnaire (error bars indicate mean ± 1 standard deviation). High scores indicate a more favourable response than low scores. Questions: (1) how easy was the finger device and headset to operate?; (2) how easy was the device to attach to your finger?; (3) how comfortable was the device during the exercise program?; (4) could you see the physiotherapist clearly during the exercise session?; (5) could you hear everything that was being said?; (6) how confident are you in using technology in general?; (7) how interested are you in learning about new technology?; (8) would you feel confident using this device at home?