Cited by 189Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Compliance with continuous positive airway pressure therapy: assessing and improving treatment outcomes

Zozula, Rochelle, Rosen, Raymond·2001·Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine

Abstract

Although nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is generally effective in correcting sleep-related respiratory disturbance and associated daytime sequelae in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS), resistance to and intolerance of CPAP poses a serious limitation to its use. Failure to comply with treatment has been reported to be as high as 25 to 50%, with patients typically abandoning therapy during the first 2 to 4 weeks of treatment. Reasons for discontinuing CPAP therapy have been primarily related to issues of mask discomfort, nasal dryness and congestion, and difficulty adapting to the pressure. Although there has been great variability in the reported rates of CPAP compliance, there have been few systematic studies to evaluate barriers to CPAP compliance or ways to improve compliance. Early identification of CPAP-related tolerance problems or barriers, psychological factors, and the predictive value of pretreatment background variables ( ie, age and gender) may enhance compliance with therapy. An important goal for OSAS management is the development of intervention strategies and educational approaches that minimize side effects and maximize patient compliance. A new classification is presented, along with suggestions and ideas for intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00063198-200111000-00005

Cites

52 of 52 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
Zozula, R., & Rosen, R.
Affiliations
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Zozula, Rochelle
Venue
Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine
Published
2001-11
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
391-398
ISSN
1070-5287 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2328579826
Cited by
189
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k07hl003635-02)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K07 HL 03635)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
CPAP adherence, continuous positive airway pressure, obstructive sleep apnea, CPAP intolerance, mask discomfort, nasal dryness, patient education, barriers to treatment, medication adherence, psychological factors
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Sleep Apnea Syndromes, Treatment Refusal, Treatment Outcome

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