Cited by 77Obstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchSleep and related disordersMedication Adherence and Compliance

A Pilot Study of CPAP Adherence Promotion by Peer Buddies with Sleep Apnea

Open access
Parthasarathy, Sairam, Wendel, Christopher, Haynes, Patricia L., Atwood, Charles, Kuna, Samuel·2013·Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine

Abstract

Study objectives To evaluate patient ratings of the acceptability of a peer buddy system (PBS). To promote continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy adherence in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). To obtain preliminary data on the effectiveness of PBS on sleep-specific health-related quality of life and CPAP adherence.Design Prospective, randomized, and controlled study.Setting Academic Center.Participants Thirty-nine patients with OSA and 13 patients with OSA who were experienced CPAP users.Interventions Recently diagnosed patients with OSA were randomly assigned to either the PBS to promote CPAP adherence (intervention group) or usual care (control group).Measurements Patient satisfaction, Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), CPAP adherence, vigilance, self-efficacy, and patient activation were measured.Results Ninety-one percent of the subjects rated the PBS as very satisfactory (68%) or satisfactory (23%). During the 90 days of therapy, weekly CPAP adherence was greater in the intervention than the usual care group (MANOVA; F = 2.29; p = 0.04). Patient satisfaction was positively correlated with CPAP adherence (R(2) = 0.14; p = 0.02). We did not find any group differences for FOSQ, vigilance, self-efficacy, or patient activation in this pilot study.Conclusion Our pilot study suggests that the PBS intervention is feasible and received high patient satisfaction ratings. CPAP adherence may be improved by peer-driven intervention, but a larger, adequately powered study is needed.Clinical trial information ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01164683.Commentary A commentary on this article appears in this issue on page 551.Citation Parthasarathy S; Wendel C; Haynes PL; Atwood C; Kuna S. A pilot study of CPAP adherence promotion by peer buddies with sleep apnea. J Clin Sleep Med 2013;9(6):543-550.

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 · 10.5664/jcsm.2744

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?

  • Overall, there were 7 RCTs identified that compared a pure educational intervention versus usual care, 6 RCTs that compared a behavioral intervention versus usual care, and 9 RCTs that compared a troubleshooting with education intervention versus usual care.

    “Overall, there were 7 RCTs 207,214,215,220,221,229,230 identified that compared a pure educational intervention versus usual care, 6 RCTs 214-219 that compared a behavioral intervention versus usual care, and 9 RCTs 207,220,222-228 that compared a troubleshooting with education intervention versus usual care.”

    From Treatment of Adult Obstructive Sleep Apnea With Positive Airway Pressure: An American Academy of Sleep Medicine Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment (2019) · cites this paper as [218]

    The Design and Setting passage identifies this as a randomized trial of a peer-buddy intervention versus usual care, supporting its inclusion among behavioral-intervention trials. It does not support counting the study as a pure educational intervention versus usual care: both groups received usual care, and the intervention group additionally interacted with peer buddies. The paper does not establish the sentence’s overall counts of 7, 6, and 9 RCTs. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • CPAP adherence was greater in the peer buddy system group after 3 months.

    “CPAP adherence was greater in the peer buddy system group after 3 months.1142”

    From International Consensus Statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (2023) · cites this paper as [1142]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Parthasarathy, S., Wendel, C., Haynes, P. L., Atwood, C., & Kuna, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Philadelphia VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Parthasarathy, Sairam
Venue
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine
Published
2013-06-15
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
543-550
ISSN
  • 1550-9389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-9397
OpenAlex
W2045452030
Cited by
77
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL095748, HL095748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Obstructive Sleep Apnea Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
CPAP adherence, obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure, peer support, patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, patient activation, sustained attention
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Peer Group, Pilot Projects, Prospective Studies, Social Support, Multivariate Analysis, Linear Models, Patient Satisfaction, Sleep Apnea, Obstructive, Self Efficacy, 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