Tristan Bonnevie1, Francis-Edouard Gravier2, Mark Elkins3, Johan Dupuis4, Guillaume Prieur5, Yann Combret6, Catherine Viacroze7, David Debeaumont8, Aurora Robleda-Quesada9, Jean Quieffin9, Bouchra Lamia10, Maxime Patout11, Antoine Cuvelier11, Jean-François Muir12, Clement Medrinal5, Catherine Tardif13. 1. ADIR Association, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France; UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France. Electronic address: rehabilitation@adir-hautenormandie.com. 2. ADIR Association, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France; UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France. 3. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Centre for Education and Workforce Development, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia. 4. ADIR Association, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 5. UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France; Service de réanimation médico-chirurgicale, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre - Hôpital Jacques Monod, Montivilliers, France. 6. Service de kinésithérapie, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre - Hôpital Jacques Monod, Montivilliers, France; Institut de Recherche Expérimentale et Clinique (IREC), Pôle de Pneumologie, ORL & Dermatologie, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 7. Pulmonary, Thoracic Oncology and Respiratory Intensive Care Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 8. Physiology Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 9. Service de réanimation médico-chirurgicale, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre - Hôpital Jacques Monod, Montivilliers, France. 10. UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France; Service de réanimation médico-chirurgicale, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre - Hôpital Jacques Monod, Montivilliers, France; Pulmonary, Thoracic Oncology and Respiratory Intensive Care Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 11. UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France; Pulmonary, Thoracic Oncology and Respiratory Intensive Care Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 12. ADIR Association, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France; UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France; Pulmonary, Thoracic Oncology and Respiratory Intensive Care Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France. 13. ADIR Association, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France; UPRES EA 3830 Haute Normandie Research and Biomedical Innovation, Normandie University, Rouen, France; Physiology Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Abstract
QUESTIONS: Can people referred to pulmonary rehabilitation easily learn to use a system for remote transmission of oximetry data? Do they consider remote transmission of oximetry data to be satisfactory? Are the transmitted data valid compared with locally stored data? DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and five adults with chronic respiratory disease who were referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. INTERVENTION: At an initial session, participants were taught to record and transmit their oximetry data to a remote server. At subsequent testing session(s), participants were requested to independently activate and use the oximetry monitoring system for a period of exercise on a cycle ergometer, until autonomy with the system was demonstrated. A subgroup of five participants undertook five 45-minute training sessions to generate a dataset to assess whether the transmitted data were valid compared with the locally stored data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included the number of sessions needed to become autonomous, participant satisfaction with the system, and measures of the validity of the transmitted data. RESULTS: Participants became autonomous quickly: 86% at the first testing session and 100% within three testing sessions. At least 98% of participants agreed that the system was easy to use and they would be willing to use it throughout pulmonary rehabilitation. The system transmitted usable data from 98% (95% CI 96 to 100) of sessions and introduced minimal artefact. Mean absolute differences were 0.365 beats/minute for heart rate and 0.133% for oxyhaemoglobin saturation. For heart rate, exact agreement was 72% (SD 9) and similar agreement (within 3 beats/minute) was 99% (SD 1). For oxyhaemoglobin saturation, exact agreement was 87% (SD 3) and similar agreement (within 3%) was 100% (SD 0). CONCLUSION: The telemonitoring system used in this study was sufficiently valid and acceptable for use in at-home pulmonary rehabilitation by people with chronic respiratory disease. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03295474 and NCT03004716 (subgroup study).
QUESTIONS: Can people referred to pulmonary rehabilitation easily learn to use a system for remote transmission of oximetry data? Do they consider remote transmission of oximetry data to be satisfactory? Are the transmitted data valid compared with locally stored data? DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, observational study. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and five adults with chronic respiratory disease who were referred to pulmonary rehabilitation. INTERVENTION: At an initial session, participants were taught to record and transmit their oximetry data to a remote server. At subsequent testing session(s), participants were requested to independently activate and use the oximetry monitoring system for a period of exercise on a cycle ergometer, until autonomy with the system was demonstrated. A subgroup of five participants undertook five 45-minute training sessions to generate a dataset to assess whether the transmitted data were valid compared with the locally stored data. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included the number of sessions needed to become autonomous, participant satisfaction with the system, and measures of the validity of the transmitted data. RESULTS:Participants became autonomous quickly: 86% at the first testing session and 100% within three testing sessions. At least 98% of participants agreed that the system was easy to use and they would be willing to use it throughout pulmonary rehabilitation. The system transmitted usable data from 98% (95% CI 96 to 100) of sessions and introduced minimal artefact. Mean absolute differences were 0.365 beats/minute for heart rate and 0.133% for oxyhaemoglobin saturation. For heart rate, exact agreement was 72% (SD 9) and similar agreement (within 3 beats/minute) was 99% (SD 1). For oxyhaemoglobin saturation, exact agreement was 87% (SD 3) and similar agreement (within 3%) was 100% (SD 0). CONCLUSION: The telemonitoring system used in this study was sufficiently valid and acceptable for use in at-home pulmonary rehabilitation by people with chronic respiratory disease. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03295474 and NCT03004716 (subgroup study).
Authors: Marlowe Galbraith; Patsy Kelso; Mark Levine; Richard C Wasserman; Jessica Sikka; Jennifer S Read Journal: Public Health Pract (Oxf) Date: 2021-08-27