Highlights
- The smartphone-based program achieved significant improvements in quality of life (CAT score) and physical activity levels (IPAQ) compared to standard care.
- Compliance remains a critical hurdle, with fewer than 50% of participants demonstrating high adherence, highlighting the need for enhanced engagement strategies.
- Integration into primary care settings proved feasible and safe, offering a scalable model for community-based respiratory management.
- The economic analysis showed no significant difference in healthcare costs between digital intervention and standard outpatient care.
Background: The Challenge of Center-Based Rehabilitation
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a cornerstone of management for chronic respiratory diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease (ILD), and bronchiectasis. Comprehensive PR has been shown to enhance exercise capacity, alleviate dyspnea, and improve overall quality of life. In some clinical cohorts, it has even been linked to improved survival rates. However, traditional center-based PR programs face substantial implementation barriers. Patients often struggle with geographical distance, lack of transportation, high costs, and limited facility availability, leading to low enrollment and high dropout rates. In the era of digital medicine, smartphone app-based interventions offer a promising alternative to bridge these gaps, providing a decentralized, patient-centric approach to chronic disease management.
Study Design and Methodology
This study employed a dual-phase approach, consisting of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a subsequent feasibility trial. The RCT recruited 90 participants who were randomly allocated in a 2:1 ratio: an intervention group (n=60) and a control group (n=30). The intervention group utilized a specialized smartphone app-based pulmonary rehabilitation program for 12 weeks, while the control group received standard outpatient care.
Clinical Endpoints
The primary outcomes were measured after the 12-week intervention period. These included:
- Maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) assessed via a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).
- The Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test (CAT) score, a validated measure of health-related quality of life.
- Secondary outcomes included the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) scores and a comprehensive cost-utility analysis calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
Feasibility in Community Settings
In addition to the RCT, a feasibility trial was conducted across four community primary health care clinics. This phase aimed to evaluate the real-world applicability of the digital program for older adults within the primary care infrastructure, focusing on clinical outcomes and safety.
Key Findings and Clinical Results
Of the initial cohort, 70 participants completed the follow-up visits. The per-protocol analysis included 67 participants (43 in the intervention group and 24 in the control group) with a median age of 65.5 years.
Quality of Life and Physical Activity
The intervention group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in quality of life compared to the control group. The median CAT score in the intervention group was 7.0 (IQR 4.0-15.0), whereas the control group remained at a median of 10.0 (IQR 6.5-18.5) (P=.04). Furthermore, physical activity levels saw a marked increase. The IPAQ scores in the intervention group reached a median of 1488.0 (IQR 1250.3-3027.8) compared to 1164.0 (IQR 618.8-2205.0) in the control group (P=.04). These findings suggest that the digital intervention effectively translates into better daily functioning and symptom management.
Exercise Capacity and Compliance
Interestingly, the study did not find a significant difference in maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) between the two groups. Sub-group analysis revealed that clinical improvements were most prominent among participants who were already physically active or those who demonstrated high compliance with the rehabilitation program. This underscores a critical clinical reality: the efficacy of digital rehabilitation is heavily dependent on patient engagement.
Economic and User Experience Outcomes
The cost-utility analysis revealed that the mean total healthcare costs were slightly higher in the intervention group (US $523) compared to the control group (US $495), but this difference was not statistically significant. There was no notable difference in the QALY distribution between the groups, suggesting that the digital program is a cost-neutral addition to standard care. User experience was overwhelmingly positive; approximately 80% of the intervention group found the app easy to navigate, and over 60% reported subjective improvements in their dyspnea symptoms.
Results from the Feasibility Trial
The feasibility phase involved 24 participants in primary care settings. Post-rehabilitation results showed a significant reduction in CAT scores from a median of 8.5 to 5.0 (P<.001). Crucially, the study reported a high safety profile, with no participants experiencing disease exacerbations or musculoskeletal injuries related to the prescribed activities. This suggests that digital PR is not only effective but also safe for implementation in lower-acuity, community-based settings.
Expert Commentary: Navigating the Adherence Gap
While the study proves the clinical efficacy and feasibility of smartphone-based PR, the low compliance rate (less than 50% demonstrating good adherence) remains the primary challenge for clinicians. For digital health to reach its full potential, future iterations must incorporate more robust behavioral nudges, gamification, or tele-coaching elements to sustain patient motivation. The lack of improvement in VO2max suggests that while the app improves subjective quality of life and general activity, it may not yet provide the same physiological intensity as supervised, center-based high-intensity interval training. Clinicians should view digital PR as a complementary tool or a bridge for patients who cannot access traditional facilities, rather than a total replacement for all patient phenotypes.
Conclusion
The trial confirms that smartphone-based pulmonary rehabilitation is a viable, safe, and effective method for improving quality of life and physical activity in patients with chronic respiratory diseases. By successfully demonstrating feasibility in primary health care clinics, the study provides a roadmap for a scalable model that connects hospital-level expertise with community-level accessibility. As digital literacy increases among the aging population, such platforms will likely become integral to the standard of care in respiratory medicine.
Funding and Clinical Trial Information
This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05610358.
References
Chung C, Kim AR, Kang DY, Kim S, Oh J, Kim HJ, Park B, Lee SH, Kim D, Kwon H, Jo MW, Lee SW. Clinical Efficacy of Smartphone App-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Chronic Respiratory Diseases: Randomized Controlled and Feasibility Trials. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Nov 28;27:e76801. doi: 10.2196/76801. PMID: 41313804; PMCID: PMC12701351.
