Cited by 68Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchMobile Health and mHealth Applications

A qualitative study of COPD-patients’ experience of a telemedicine intervention

Nissen, Lene, Lindhardt, Tove·2017·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Background Clinically stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are often followed at regular intervals regardless of the needs. Our aim was to investigate the patient perspective on receiving telemedicine with weekly submission of readings and regular video consultations (Net-COPD) as an alternative to visits in the respiratory outpatient clinic and investigating the role of telemedicine in management of severe COPD.Design Descriptive design and the method is qualitative based on semistructured interviews.Methods Fourteen intervention patients participated from the Danish randomized clinical trial Net-COPD project. The transcribed interviews were analysed using manifest and latent content analysis.Findings Participants reported that Net-COPD brought enhanced wellbeing and a sense of security in knowing that nurses kept an eye on them and initiated appropriate interventions in case of changes in the patient's condition. This was experienced as a lifeline to the respiratory outpatient clinic, which could be contacted when needed. Through monitoring, moreover, patients developed increased awareness and better self-management of their disease. Patients also experienced more focused and less stressful meetings via video consultations, than in respiratory outpatient visits. Nevertheless it was important that it was the same health staff patient met in the video consultations.Conclusion Participation in telemedicine increased the patient empowerment primarily by the sharing of data with a permanent staff of nurses. This knowledge was used to keep control of the disease in the form of extra readings and the systematic use of learned initiatives. This gave patients and relatives a sense of security.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.08.004

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nissen, L., & Lindhardt, T.
Affiliations
Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Nissen, Lene
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
107
Pages
11-17
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2746728815
Cited by
68
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, telemedicine, patient experience, video consultation, remote patient monitoring, self-management, patient empowerment, nurse-led care, outpatient care
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Self Care, Telemedicine, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Qualitative Research, Early Medical Intervention

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