Cited by 138Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchMedication Adherence and ComplianceSleep and related disorders

Patient Engagement Using New Technology to Improve Adherence to Positive Airway Pressure Therapy

Open access
Malhotra, Atul, Crocker, Maureen E., Willes, Leslee, Kelly, Colleen, Lynch, Sue, Benjafield, Adam V.·2018·Chest

Abstract

Background Sleep apnea has major neurocognitive and cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Treatment of sleep apnea is suboptimal because of variable adherence to existing therapies.Methods This trial compared positive airway pressure adherence among patients who were provided active patient engagement (APE) technology vs those who received usual care monitoring (UCM). The primary outcome was expressed by using the US Medicare definition of adherence. Adherence data from two cloud-based databases (AirView and myAir) were analyzed for patients with sleep apnea. Data were included if a patient's activation date in the APE tool was within 7 days of the therapy start date in the UCM database during a defined time window. Data were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio (APE:UCM) based on baseline patient characteristics.Results A total of 128,037 patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics were typical of a sleep clinic cohort. APE was associated with more patients achieving adherence criteria (87.3%) compared with UCM patients (70.4%; P < .0001 for the difference). Average therapy usage was 5.9 h per night in the APE group vs 4.9 h per night in the matched UCM patients (P < .0001). Patients with sleep apnea "struggling" with therapy adherence had a 17.6% absolute improvement in adherence using APE compared with UCM.Conclusions Robust therapy adherence rates can be achieved by adding modern technology to usual care. Adopting advances in technology in care management may allow clinicians to more effectively and efficiently treat patients who have sleep apnea. Rigorous randomized controlled trials may be required before making strong clinical recommendations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2017.11.005

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A large database analysis showed 87% adherence at 90 days in patients who enrolled in internet-based active patient engagement software.

    “A large database analysis showed an outstanding 87% adherence at 90 days in patients who enrolled in internet-based active patient engagement software.1197”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [1197]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]8. Hoy CJ, Venelle M, Douglas NJ. Can CPAP use be improved? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155:304A.
  2. [15]15. Kline L, Carlson P. Humidification improves NCPAP acceptance and use. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999;159: A427.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Malhotra, A., Crocker, M. E., Willes, L., Kelly, C., Lynch, S., & Benjafield, A. V.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • ResMed (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Malhotra, Atul
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-04
Volume
153
Issue
4
Pages
843-850
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2768364592
Cited by
138
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6
FWCI
8.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • American Thoracic Society (R21 HL121794, RO1 HL 119201, and RO1 HL081823)
  • ResMed
  • National Institutes of Health (and K24, RO1 HL- 081823)
  • University of California, San Diego
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL081823, T32HL134632, R21HL121794, R01HL085188, K24HL132105, R01HL119201)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
Keywords
sleep apnea, positive airway pressure, CPAP adherence, patient engagement, care management
MeSH terms
Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Participation, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Biomedical Technology, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure

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