The “physician on call patient engagement trial” (POPET): measuring the impact of a mobile patient engagement application on health outcomes and quality of life in allergic rhinitis and asthma patients
Abstract
Background: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, double‐blind study, we investigated the impact of a mobile patient engagement application on health outcomes and quality of life in allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma patients. Methods: In total, 327 patients with diagnoses of persistent AR or mild‐to‐severe persistent asthma were randomized into 2 intervention groups and 2 control groups upon their admission at outpatient clinics. The intervention groups (POPET‐AR and POPET‐Asthma) received a mobile phone application (“physician on call patient engagement trial” [POPET]), enabling them to communicate with their physician, and record their health status and medication compliance. The AR groups completed the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at initiation and at the first month of the study. The asthma groups completed the Asthma Control Test (ACT) at initiation and at the third month of the study. Results: The POPET‐AR group showed better clinical improvement than the control group in terms of the overall RQLQ score as well in measures of general problems, activity, symptoms other than nose/eye, and emotion domains ( p < 0.05). In the POPET‐Asthma group, more patients (49%) achieved a well‐controlled asthma score (ACT > 19) compared with the control group (27%); this was statistically significant ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Use of a mobile engagement platform, such as POPET, can have a significant impact on health outcomes and quality of life in both AR and asthma, potentially decreasing the number of hospital admissions, repeat doctor visits, and losses in productivity. Improvements were seen in domains related to activity, productivity, perception of disease, and emotion.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cingi et al. reported that patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma displayed better quality of life or well-controlled asthma scores by using the mHealth intervention compared to the control group (all P < 0.05).
“In Turkey, Cingi et al. [28] reported that patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma displayed better quality of life or well-controlled asthma scores by using the mHealth intervention compared to the control group (all P < 0.05).”
From Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [28]
Four trials failed to provide a full description of participants and losses to follow-up during their trials.
“Four trials failed to provide a full description of participants and losses to follow-up during their trials [24, 28, 29, 31].”
From Effective behavioral intervention strategies using mobile health applications for chronic disease management: a systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 83
- Authors
- Cingi, C., Yorgancioglu, A., Cingi, C. C., Oguzulgen, K., Muluk, N. B., Ulusoy, S., Orhon, N., Yumru, C., Gokdag, D., Karakaya, G., Çelebi, Ş., Çobanoglu, H. B., Unlu, H., & Aksoy, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Anadolu University (TR)
- Department of Chest Diseases, Medical Faculty Celal Bayar University Manisa Turkey
- Department of Chest Diseases, Medical Faculty Gazi University Ankara Turkey
- Kırıkkale University (TR)
- ENT Clinic, GOP Taksim Ilkyardım Training and Research Hospital Istanbul Turkey
- Taksim Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi (TR)
- Department of Chest Diseases Medical Faculty, Hacettepe University Ankara Turkey
- Haseki Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi (TR)
- ENT Clinic, Trabzon Training and Research Hospital Trabzon Turkey
- ENT Clinic, Ekol ENT Hospital İzmir Turkey
- Eskişehir Osmangazi University (TR)
- Corresponding author
- Muluk, Nuray Bayar
- Venue
- International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-09
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 487-497
- ISSN
- 2042-6976 (ISSN-L)
- 2042-6984
- OpenAlex
- W1860807396
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 15.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- mobile health apps, patient engagement, allergic rhinitis, asthma, quality of life, asthma control, Asthma Control Test, physician-patient communication, medication adherence, persistent allergic rhinitis
- MeSH terms
- Smartphone, Adult, Asthma, Double-Blind Method, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Remote Consultation, Medication Adherence, Young Adult, Mobile Applications, Rhinitis, Allergic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review