Cited by 33Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Polysomnograph Chart View by Patients: A New Educational Strategy to Improve CPAP Adherence in Sleep Apnea Therapy

Open access
Falcone, Vito Antonio, Damiani, Mario Francesco, Quaranta, Vitaliano Nicola, Capozzolo, Alberto, Resta, Onofrio·2014·Respiratory Care

Abstract

BACKGROUND: CPAP is currently the treatment of choice for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome, but therapy adherence is poor. Many educational trials have been proposed to increase CPAP adherence. We tested the hypothesis that polysomnograph chart viewing by patients would improve CPAP adherence. METHODS: A controlled parallel group study was performed with 206 newly diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea syndrome patients, randomized into 2 groups ( n = 103 each): standard support group, and educational support group. Each educational support group subject viewed 2 consecutive polysomnograms on the computer screen: the first recorded during a standard diagnostic overnight polysomnography, and the second during a full-night polysomnography with nasal CPAP. The subject's attention was drawn only to the flow and oxyhemoglobin saturation curves. Clinical outcomes were assessed via polysomnography at CPAP initiation and after 1, 3, and 12 months. RESULTS: After 12 months of CPAP, 76% of the educational support group and 52% of the standard support group returned for a follow-up visit ( P < .001). Statistical significance had already been reached after 1 and 3 months. Moreover, CPAP use (measured as hours of use per night) was higher in the educational support group at each control visit. CONCLUSIONS: Polysomnograph chart viewing by obstructive sleep apnea patients can increase CPAP adherence, as evaluated by rate of return for the follow-up visit and mean nightly CPAP use.

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 · 10.4187/respcare.02491

Cites

34 of 34 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Falcone, V. A., Damiani, M. F., Quaranta, V. N., Capozzolo, A., & Resta, O.
Affiliations
University of Bari Aldo Moro (IT)
Venue
Respiratory Care
Published
2013-08-06
Volume
59
Issue
2
Pages
193-198
ISSN
0020-1324 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156696984
Cited by
33
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Respiratory Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Bari Aldo Moro) (submittedVersion)
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, obstructive sleep apnea, patient education, CPAP therapy
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Prospective Studies, Single-Blind Method, Polysomnography, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Access to Information, 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