Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs

Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs | medRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-P4HH5NV'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs View ORCID Profile Stephanie Zawada , View ORCID Profile Louis Faust , View ORCID Profile Caden Collins , View ORCID Profile Moein Enayati , View ORCID Profile Roberto Benzo , View ORCID Profile Emma Fortune doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.02.25334970 Stephanie Zawada 1 Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN Ph.D., M.S. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Stephanie Zawada For correspondence: zawada.stephanie{at}mayo.edu Louis Faust 1 Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN Ph.D. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Louis Faust Caden Collins 2 Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic , Scottsdale, AZ B.S. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Caden Collins Moein Enayati 3 Mayo Clinic Platform , Rochester, MN Ph.D., M.S. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Moein Enayati Roberto Benzo 4 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Mindful Breathing Laboratory , Rochester, MN M.D., M.S. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Roberto Benzo Emma Fortune 1 Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic , Rochester, MN Ph.D. Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Emma Fortune Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Data/Code Preview PDF Abstract Objective Despite its demonstrated effectiveness at improving outcomes, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is underutilized. Sensor-generated data from wearable devices have the potential to mitigate this challenge by generating digital endpoints that provide insights into patient behaviors at home; however, there is no consensus on how to measure home-based PR (HBPR) outcomes with these tools. This review aims to describe (1) the most frequent digital endpoints used in HBPR studies and (2) the devices used to capture these endpoints, summarizing gaps in their applications to HBPR for COPD patients. Methods We completed a scoping review using the PRISMA checklist across databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID) from January 2005 to June 20, 2025. We included peer-reviewed articles on HBPR for COPD, excluding reviews, commentaries/editorials, poster abstracts, and conference proceedings. Eligible articles included cohort studies and clinical trials of adult patients (age > 18 years) with COPD participating in HBPR that include one or more digital endpoints. Results Among eligible articles (n = 218), 13 (6.0%) met inclusion criteria, the majority of which were published after 2020 (61.5%). Most studies enrolled fewer than 100 COPD patients (76.9%) for an average monitoring period of 12.5 weeks. Activity trackers were the most commonly used device (46.2%) to capture data. The most frequently used digital endpoints were step count (84.6%), time spent active (38.5%), and time spent sedentary (30.8%). Two study designs were used: randomized controlled trial (76.9%) and observational cohort. Study designs were heterogenous with more than one-third (38.5%) presenting a lack of statistically significant results. Conclusions Although we identified analogous digital endpoints in some studies, dissimilar methods and study designs remain barriers to synthesizing results generated from HBPR programs for COPD. Wearable devices have the potential to build novel PR models, but more work is needed to translate real-world data into clinically meaningful measures. Future research should elucidate which participants would benefit most from and complete HBPR to build an evidence base for the validation of HBPR-relevant digital endpoints, particularly those derived from less common sources like cardiovascular and sleep measures. Clinical Implications While wearable devices can augment HBPR programs, caution must be exercised when interpreting remotely collected data and requires clinicians to engage patients via traditional monitoring means, such as video telehealth and in-person visits, to ensure accurate screening and severity grading. Combining multiple sensors can capture a range of physiologic markers relevant to understanding patient-specific COPD exacerbations, from medication use to sedentary behavior, potentially informing personalized rehabilitation plans. Considering the heterogeneity of randomized controlled trials with digital endpoints in HBPR programs, little is known about optimal COPD patient sampling frequencies, or which populations would benefit most from integrating specific sensors in home-based programs. INTRODUCTION Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of death worldwide, and its prevalence is projected to increase by 2030 [ 1 , 2 ]. Exacerbations of COPD, characterized by worsening of chronic breathing problems, are a major cause of hospitalization and death. In addition, these episodes place significant stress on the heart, contributing to the estimated 60% of COPD-related deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease [ 3 ]. Considering that 65% of patients with COPD are overweight or obese, the need for scalable, effective prevention strategies to lower cardiopulmonary risk factors, like sedentary behavior, in this population is urgent [ 3 ]. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is one such approach to increase physical activity, reduce shortness of breath, and enhance mood in patients with COPD [ 4 , 5 ]. PR is a well-established treatment, effective for improving outcomes and quality-of-life (QoL) after hospitalization for COPD exacerbations [ 6 ]. Though PR for COPD can be personalized to individual patient needs, central elements of PR involve endurance training, strength-building exercises, and breathing techniques [ 7 , 8 ]. These components are coordinated by clinical teams, including nurses, respiratory therapists, physical therapists, and counselors, and, sometimes, by autonomous tools [ 7 ]. PR for COPD typically consists of three phases, each with ongoing education about how to manage COPD. Phase I (inpatient) occurs while a patient receives care for a COPD-related hospitalization. Phase II (outpatient) is delivered multiple times per week for 6 or more weeks with clinical team oversight. Phase III (maintenance) is an extension of Phase II with less clinical oversight, as patients transition from monitored exercise and treatment to self-management [ 9 ]. Enrolling COPD patients in outpatient PR is supported by current evidence, including the majority of observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and systematic reviews [ 10 – 14 ]. Despite its positive effects, outpatient PR programs remain underutilized, with recent studies showing fewer than 4% of patients hospitalized for COPD participating in PR after discharge [ 15 , 16 ]. Persistent reasons cited by patients who decline PR are a lack of motivation, interest, and perceived benefit [ 17 – 19 ]. The transportation burden associated with PR also drives this lack of adoption, with in-person PR primarily concentrated in urban environments [ 20 ]. Thus, access disparities are worse in rural areas, with fewer than 12% of rural patients having a PR center within 10 miles from their home [ 21 ]. Limited insurance reimbursement for PR is an additional challenge for PR programs, exacerbating the already-low participation rates observed in low socioeconomic status (SES) patients [ 22 – 24 ]. For those who do enroll in PR, attrition rates are high, often exceeding 50% [ 25 ]. To address these barriers, alternative, home-based-PR (HBPR) models that rely on telehealth technologies, have been implemented [ 26 ], however, no specific model of HBPR has been defined, with the clinical practice guidelines (2023) from the American Thoracic Society (ATS) on PR in COPD stating only that patients with stable COPD should be offered center- or home-based PR options [ 27 ]. Similarly, a 2021 Cochrane review, including 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 controlled clinical trials (CCTs), compared center-based PR with HBPR, the latter limited to only telephone and videoconferencing modalities [ 28 ]. Their results found clinically meaningful improvements in exercise capacity, QoL, and dyspnea in both groups and no significant differences in improvements between groups. Notably, participants in HBPR programs were more likely to complete PR than those in center-based programs. Many of these programs offer flexibility beyond that of in-person PR, possibly addressing lifestyle needs and behavior changes critical to improving adherence [ 29 ]. Moreover, when these programs collect real-time data from wearable devices, they offer clinical teams the opportunity to tailor patient-specific exercise prescriptions and behavioral interventions during outpatient as well as self-management PR phases for sustained impact [ 6 , 30 – 32 ]. Several systematic reviews have assessed the effectiveness of wearables for monitoring COPD patients, with none specific to outpatient PR programs. A 2023 meta-analysis (n = 37) by Shah et al. showed that wearables, consisting of mostly pedometers, increased mean daily step count and performance on the 6-minute walk distance test over short time periods [ 31 ]. Moreover, wearables combined with PR programs showed improvements of greater magnitude compared to remote monitoring without coaching or observation, corroborating the results of a 2016 meta-analysis assessing older technologies [ 33 ]. The use of wearables data to predict or avoid respiratory exacerbations in COPD is indeterminate and had no significant impact on QoL, extending the results of a systematic review of predictive algorithms for at-home COPD monitoring [ 34 ]. Additionally, a systematic review (included papers, n = 7) assessing oxygen saturation and respiratory rate readings from Bluetooth-compatible devices reported high validity in real-world settings, but yielded inconsistent prediction accuracy [ 35 ]. Additionally, numerous proof-of-concept studies for wearables have only been conducted in controlled environments, like inpatient PR, not accounting for the complexities inherent with real-world deployment [ 36 – 37 ]. No review exclusively focused on HBPR settings has assessed wearable devices. Moreover, the reviews available assess the outpatient and self-management PR phases together, without considering that COPD patients in outpatient PR are normally in a higher-acuity state than those in the self-management PR phase [ 38 , 31 ]. Despite the promise of objective data from wearable devices, further work is necessary to translate these measures into clinical practice. To our knowledge, no review has surveyed the wearables landscape in HBPR to map the state of currently available digital endpoints: measurable health outcomes from digital technologies used to evaluate whether an intervention has a targeted effect [ 39 ]. This scoping review primarily aims to identify the set of digital endpoints used to study patient outcomes in HBPR programs for COPD. Second, it aims to summarize gaps in our understanding of using wearable and nearable devices in HBPR to monitor COPD. METHODS Definitions and analytic framework To organize this scoping review, we conceptualized the HBPR program as monitoring or delivering an intervention to patients with a COPD diagnosis, facilitated by digital sensors embedded in wearable or nearable devices. Included studies were those investigating fully remote outpatient PR implementations. Studies with home health visits and in-person assessments, except in a preliminary phase before HBPR or to provide orientation for HBPR, were excluded. Studies with telehealth visits were eligible for inclusion, provided some digital sensor from a wearable sensor device was a monitoring component of the program. Eligible studies were those assessing at least one digital endpoint, like steps per day. Digital endpoints were derived from sensors in a wearable or nearable device and could capture any physical symptom capable of being observed remotely. No specific definitions for devices were applied to limit the scope of emerging technologies included in this analysis. For instance, smartphone app and integrated smartphone app-platform technologies were included if they collected sensor-based data, like smartphone accelerometer data. We applied this framework to categorize types of digital endpoints and summarize their state-of-the-art implementations in real-world PR programs with COPD patients, thereby highlighting gaps in the literature. Although prior frameworks informed by theory have been proposed to evaluate state-of-the-art technologies for clinical applications, few have focused on assessing digital endpoints. Our approach builds on that of Goldsack et al.’s framework for digital endpoint evaluation. We assembled the set of digital endpoints able to be observed in real-world settings and the devices used to capture them [ 40 , 41 ]. Search Strategy This review was conducted according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Review guidelines. Searches were conducted across Web of Science core collection (hosted by Clarivate Analytics [≥1975]), Scopus (hosted by Elsevier [≥1788]), and Ovid MEDLINE (≥1946), in addition to Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations and daily, which is identical to PubMed. Studies published from January 2005 through June 20, 2025 were included. Only publications available in English were included. Observational studies, including both cohort and case-control studies, as well as cross-sectional and mixed-methods studies were eligible for inclusion. Randomized (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Reviews, conference abstracts and papers, commentaries/editorials, protocols, and professional society guidelines were excluded. As the scope of this review centered on real-world data capture of symptoms and markers relevant to outpatient PR for COPD, prototype studies as well as those assessing only PR program adherence and usability metrics were excluded. Eligible studies included adults ( > 18 years of age) with a COPD diagnosis. Limiting our search strategy to only studies with “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease” or “COPD” in the title or abstract, a robust set of digital sensor tools were included in the search terms ( Figure 1 ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1 Conditions and tools used to develop the search strategy. Selecting Studies First, title and abstract screening for relevance was performed by one investigator (SJZ). At this step, the list of studies was reviewed by 3 additional investigators (JVC, LJF, and EF). Second, a full-text review, including annotation and adjudication, was completed by two investigators (SJZ and CAC). The final list of included studies was reviewed by a clinical expert to ensure relevance (RJB). The rationale for each eligibility criteria applied is available in Table 1 . View this table: View inline View popup Table 1 Eligibility Criteria and Rationale for Study Inclusion and Exclusion View this table: View inline View popup Table 2 Summary of Studies on Digital Endpoints in HBPR for COPD Data Collection and Analysis The following data was extracted by one investigator (SJZ): authors, year, country, study design, COPD severity, sample characteristics, wearable/nearable device, digital endpoints, results, and attrition rate. When reported in studies, non-digital endpoints, like patient-generated surveys or in-person walking tests, were not extracted for evaluation. Similarly, when a wearable or nearable device was used in a study but no recorded data were analyzed, the study was excluded. Digital measures used in descriptive studies were excluded from this analysis of digital endpoints. Smartphones were only listed as a monitoring device used to generate digital endpoints if they enabled the collection of sensor-based data, regardless of the smartphone’s role in the study. RESULTS This initial search generated 14,895 articles. After removing duplicate articles, and then screening titles and abstracts, 218 titles were selected for full-text review. Of the 218 articles adjudicated, 6.0% (n = 13) met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA flow chart for this search is detailed in Figure 2 . Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2 PRISMA Flowchart of Included Studies Study Characteristics Summary data for each study is reported in Table 1 . Most studies (n = 8, 61.5%) were published after 2019. For study design, 10 articles reported a randomized controlled trial (RCT), 2 used an observational cohort, and 1 was a secondary analysis of an RCT. More than half of the studies (69.2%) enrolled small cohorts of COPD patients (<100). The average duration of PR for studies was 12.5 weeks (min = 4 weeks; max = 52 weeks). One study had a 6-month follow-up checkpoint and another had a 12-month checkpoint. All studies focused on adult populations, primarily consisting of middle-aged and older adults, with the youngest cohort mean age of 64 years. Three studies lacked demographic enrollment data [ 47 – 49 ]. Of the studies with participant demographic data, half enrolled primarily male participants. What are the most frequently used digital endpoints in HBPR for COPD? Among the articles included, all endpoints were generated using daily summaries of wearable data. Five studies (38.5%) examined more than 1 digital endpoint listed in Figure 3 [ 43 , 46 – 48 , 53 , 54 ]. Step count was the most common endpoint examined (84.6%), with most studies assessing steps/day and only 1 tracking steps/min. The next most popular endpoint was minutes spent in active behavior (38.5%), minutes spent in sedentary behavior (30.8%), minutes spent in moderate physical activity (23.1%), minutes spent in light physical activity (15.4%), minutes spent in total sleep (7.7%), minutes spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (7.7%), minutes spent in lifestyle behavior (7.7%), and inhaler use (7.7%). One implementation of the “minutes spent in active behavior” endpoint was assessed within the 30 minutes of a motivational cue (intervention) delivered to patients via smartphone [ 52 ]. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3 Frequency of Digital Endpoints Used Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4 Frequency of Monitoring Devices Used What are the most frequent devices used to measure digital endpoints in COPD? To generate digital endpoints, the most frequently used monitoring strategy employed a wrist-worn activity tracker (n = 4), followed by an armband activity tracker (n = 2), thigh-worn accelerometer sensor (n = 2), and belt-worn accelerometer sensor + smartphone (n = 2). Eight studies used only wearables, and 4 studies used a smartphone plus nearable approach. One study used only a nearable (actuation sensor-enabled inhaler). How are digital endpoints used? Of the 13 studies included, all captured sensor-based data from participants to assess a HBPR program. Ten studies were RCTs, each with unique HBPR programs [ 43 , 45 – 48 , 50 – 54 ]. Hansen et al (2020) compared the outcomes of two supervised PR programs using a tri-axial accelerometer taped to a participant’s thigh: one at home (n = 67) and another conducted in clinical settings (n = 67) [ 48 ]. From baseline to the end of the 22-week follow-up, a statistically significant decrease in steps/day was observed in the conventional PR group (p < 0.05); however, no change was observed in the HBPR group. Using the same accelerometer, Godtfredson et al (2020) examined physical activity level (PAL) differences between HBPR (n = 45) and standard PR (n= 39), using three measures: sedentary time, active time, and steps/day [ 47 ]. Twelve months after PR, no significant differences were observed for PAL in the HBPR group but steps/day decreased in the control group (−822 steps/day; 95% CI = [-1575, -138]). Extending these results, Benzo et al (2022) used a wrist-worn activity monitor, demonstrating that a fully remote, unsupervised HBPR program (n = 143) could deliver a significant improvement in steps/day by the end of 12 weeks (p = 0.0113) compared to standard PR (n = 142); however, no clinically meaningful improvements were noted for time spent in moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light PA, or sleep [ 43 ]. Chaplin et al (2022) used a chest-worn accelerometer to compare a conventional PR cohort (n = 51) with a web-enhanced HBPR cohort with enhanced exercise and educational training (n = 52) [ 45 ]. While no significant findings were observed in the accelerometer data collected before and after the PR interventions, a nonsignificant increase (12%) in steps/day was observed in the web-based PR cohort (5,645 to 6,112 steps/day), primarily consisting of short MVPA episodes. One study assessed medication use in a cohort of participants offered HBPR (n = 25), with 75% participating [ 46 ]. Federman et al. (2024) used electronic monitoring inhaler devices to quantify medication use remotely in a digital symptom-management platform study, finding that participants in the HBPR program, who were instructed to use their inhaler on a daily basis, exhibited increased daily medication use (difference-in-differences = 7.7%) compared to controls without PR (n = 26) [ 46 ]. Two studies used a platform strategy for monitoring, which consisted of a Bluetooth-connected belt-worn accelerometer sensor that paired with a participant’s smartphone, also worn on the belt for the study [ 51 , 52 ]. In the first, Tabak et al. (2014) compared a HBPR program (n = 14) to standard care (n = 16), finding that pedometer-measured steps/day did not improve [ 52 ]. In the second, Tabak et al (2014) deployed an autonomous coaching program, that aimed to adjust PA behaviors in real-time via text messaging and visuals, like graphs [ 51 ]. Participants (n = 15) responded with appropriate modified behaviors, decreasing PA after a discouraging cue and increasing PA after an encouraging one (p < 0.05). In addition, overall activity levels increased in the cohort; however, although the intervention was designed to more evenly distribute PA across daytime hours, no balance in PA was achieved. Using a wrist-worn accelerometer, Vasilopoulou et al (2017) investigated the effectiveness of a maintenance HBPR program, one that participants could complete after a primary PR program, if necessary (n = 147) [ 54 ]. Considering positive effects with the initial PR program – namely, increased light, lifestyle, and moderate activities and decreased sedentary time (p < 0.05), sustained improvement in all 4 physical activity metrics was observed after the 12-month HBPR program. Tsai et al’s (2017) study began with an at-home visit to help prepare participants for the HBPR program [ 53 ]. This study compared HBPR (n = 19) to a control group (n =17) that received standard care without exercise training, no significant between-group differences in SenseWear armband-measured steps/day were observed at the conclusion of the HBPR. Also using the armband, Horton et al (2021) launched a study with an in-hospital preliminary component to orient participants to the HBPR program [ 49 ]. They compared the results of a HBPR program (n = 26) to that of standard, center-based PR (n = 25). Although the HBPR cohort showed promising improvements at the end of 7 weeks, with a significant increase in step count (p = 0.006) and decrease in time spent sedentary compared to the control group (p = 0.039), the step count for both groups reverted to baseline after 6 months. Though no statistically significant change in moderate physical activity (MPA) was observed during the study, time spent in MPA also returned to baseline for both cohorts by the 6-month mark. In contrast, Paneroni et al (2015) used a pedometer to compare the impact of HBPR (n = 18) versus standard PR (n = 18), finding increased physical activity in HBPR participants at study conclusion (3,412 v. 1,863 steps/day; p < 0.001) [ 50 ]. Cerdan-de-las-heras et al (2021) applied a wrist-worn accelerometer to track 7-day steps/day and total vector magnitude counts per minute (VMCPM) [ 44 ]. No difference from study commencement to end or between HBPR (n = 27) or control cohorts (n = 27) were observed for either digital endpoint. Benzo et al.’s (2023) small-scale evaluation (n = 12) of a remote coaching program found an overall average increase in monthly step counts, but no statistically significant results derived from monitoring devices; however, individual participant metrics improved over the 8-week study, with 8 participants logging 500 daily step counts [ 42 ]. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review to map digital endpoints used in HBPR for COPD studies. In addition, our objective was to identify the devices most frequently used to capture data for these digital endpoints. Most were published after 2020 and enrolled fewer than 100 COPD patients. While the most common endpoints derived from objective data were daily step count and daily minutes spent in active behavior, multiple studies assessed active behavior by different intensity levels, from lifestyle activities like walking to MVPA. Activity trackers were the most common devices used to capture data, and RCTs were the most commonly used study design. As studies recorded conflicting outcomes, with one showing HBPR participants returning to their lower, baseline PA levels after follow-up periods, it remains to be seen whether self-management programs, implemented after the outpatient PR phase, can sustain the benefits of PR for participants. Most studies included endpoints capturing physical activity. Given that exercise capacity is an indirect measure of lung function and COPD status, it is not a surprise that most studies evaluated whether an intervention could improve physical activity levels [ 55 ]. Increased PA is a key measure for successful completion of PR programs, one that is easy to objectively measure in real-world settings with high-quality consumer wearables [ 56 ]. The heterogeneity of study designs and devices used to measure endpoints limits comparative analyses and meta-analyses in this research area; however, if home-based PR programs are ever to be sustainable in the long-run, methodological guidance is necessary regarding the use of wearables. Across studies comparing steps per day and other physical activity metrics, conflicting results regarding the efficacy of HBPR were found. Given that little is known about participant profiles of those who would benefit most from HBPR, targeted recruitment of studies in COPD monitoring might be necessary to standardize digital endpoints for more efficient interpretation [ 57 ]. Though it is important to consider variations in results may be driven by different levels of COPD severity that were not controlled for in analyses, the need for clarity here is critical to inform future studies. The trend of converging studies around physical activity monitoring is evident. Though valuable for investigating specific targets when evaluating PR programs, this approach disregards the complexity of factors, from environmental to lifestyle behaviors, contributing to home-based PR outcomes, as well as COPD exacerbations and recovery [ 32 , 58 ]. Considering the routine practice of charting lung function at baseline and follow-up for PR program participants in clinical or laboratory environments, it is surprising that no endpoint used a patient-facing spirometer for home-based assessment of lung function. Only the actuation sensor-enabled inhaler was interpreted as an indirect measure of lung capacity, with participants instructed to use their inhaler daily and the endpoint quantifying compliance with daily use guidance. It is possible that some researchers are unaware of modern smart inhaler and spirometer devices or that the reliability of remote spirometer devices has yet to be validated in COPD populations. Regardless, as respiratory disease prevalence grows over the next decade, smart breathalyzers could fill this need in HBPR programs [ 59 ]. Similarly, as COPD patients frequently report sleep disturbances, it is remarkable that only 1 study assessed a digital endpoint for sleep (total sleep time) [ 60 ]. With an ever-growing number of digital sleep interventions, like digital cognitive behavioral therapy, and digital sleep measures, like nighttime respiratory rate, tracking sleep in COPD programs is ripe for discovery [ 61 ]. Also, no digital endpoints evaluated cardiovascular markers, which frequently predict short-and long-term prognosis in COPD [ 62 ]. Most studies that met the inclusion criteria paired multiple devices. Despite the variety in devices used, not all data was translated into digital endpoints. For instance, Vasilopoulou et al used a Bluetooth-enabled pulse oximeter, wearable tracker, and novel smartphone app [ 54 ]; however, no data from either the pulse oximeter or wearable tracker was converted into a study endpoint. This highlights the gap between available technologies, from Bluetooth-linked inhalers to heart rate-capturing armbands, and clinically meaningful interpretations of the data they generate. Compared to real-world digital endpoints in fields like cardiology, which can involve heart rate and blood pressure endpoints, outcomes evaluated by digital endpoints for HBPR monitoring were primarily restricted to pedometer-derived step counts and accelerometer-derived physical activity [ 63 ]. Considering the ever-growing set of digital measures derived from high-quality devices, like nighttime heart rate variability, or emerging digital measures calculated by machine learning techniques, like smartphone audio sensor-derived cough detection, the potential for growth in the home-based PR digital endpoint space is high [ 64 , 65 ]. The results of Benzo et al’s study, which found no significant results between cohorts, but found improved step counts for individuals over their observed time period, support the need for evaluative methods that incorporate patient-specific thresholds in lieu of population reference thresholds [ 42 ]. Although using digital endpoints for HBPR monitoring appears feasible, no recommendations regarding optimal tool selection, standardized methods, or sampling frequencies for sensor-based data have been established. Despite daily physical activity being the strongest predictor of survival in COPD patients, the measure is underutilized [ 66 ]. The lack of validated or standardized physical activity measures specific to COPD patient populations – and the need for different digital endpoints to help clinicians assess whether individual patients have engaged in distinct types of physical activity, from walking to weightlifting and everything in between, remains a key barrier to evaluating HBPR. Limitations The main limitation is the scope of this review, which necessitated broad inclusion criteria rather than focusing on specific device types or on endpoints. Considering that we limited our study to digital endpoints, this review reflects only the current state of digital endpoints and not the totality of potential endpoints, currently defined as digital measures, that may be in the early stages of development, like audio-based exacerbation measures or EEG headbands to measure sleep [ 41 , 65 ]. Third, our search criteria excluded studies of patients at risk of or with suspected COPD, focusing exclusively on patients with a COPD diagnosis. Thus, other digital endpoints relevant to PR monitoring may exist but may have only been evaluated in the pre-diagnostic phases. We also focused on home-based PR, rather than home-based self-management, and may have excluded digital endpoints that are used in the latter category. While other digital endpoints relevant to PR monitoring may exist in prediagnostic phases for patients at risk of or with suspected COPD, or for home-based self-management phases, the goal of this study was to focus on HBPR due to the existing gap in knowledge on this phase, as COPD patients in this phase typically being in a higher-acuity state Lastly, we conducted neither a bias nor quality analysis of included articles. Nonetheless, this is the first review study aiming to identify the most common real-world digital endpoints and devices used to evaluate HBPR programs, and to summarize gaps in our understanding of using wearables and nearables in remote monitoring of COPD. Another key limitation inherent in PR programs is that patients with stage 4 COPD are less likely to be referred to PR, whether center-or home-based, potentially restricting the generalizability of these findings to patients with less severe COPD [ 67 ]. As the season of monitoring in PR is known to impact participant activity levels but was not reported in studies included in this review, this should be considered when interpreting these results [ 68 ]. Conclusions Nevertheless, this scoping review revealed that (1) digital endpoints in home-based PR primarily focus on physical activity, (2) digital endpoints tracking sleep, spirometer values, and other cardiovascular biomarkers are understudied, (3) some data streams from wearable devices have yet to be translated into endpoints for home-based PR, and (4) optimal sampling frequency for the digital endpoints in this space is unclear. Future investigations should prioritize robust inclusion criteria for HBPR, to enhance the standardization of digital endpoints by recruiting participants for HBPR who are most likely to benefit, and explore sleep and cardiovascular measures as digital endpoints for home-based PR evaluation [ 69 ]. Data Availability All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors Acknowledgements Funding for this study was provided by NIH R56 HL173214, NIH R01 HL140486, and the Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Delivery. References [1]. ↵ de Oca MM , Perez-Padilla R , Celli B , et al. The global burden of COPD: epidemiology and effect of prevention strategies . Lancet Respir Med. Published online July 14 , 2025 . doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00339-4 OpenUrl CrossRef [2]. ↵ World Health Organization . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) . Published November 6, 2024. Accessed July 22, 2025. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease-(copd) [3]. ↵ Morgan AD , Zakeri R , Quint JK . Defining the relationship between COPD and CVD: what are the implications for clinical practice? . Ther Adv Respir Dis . 2018 ; 12 : 1753465817750524 . doi: 10.1177/1753465817750524 OpenUrl CrossRef [4]. ↵ Sharma P , Scheffer K , Louis M , Aitken CR , Adams L , Morris NR . Effect of experimental modulation of mood on exertional dyspnoea in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . Respirology . 2024 ; 29 ( 3 ): 201 – 208 . doi: 10.1111/resp.14642 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [5]. ↵ Oates GR , Niranjan SJ , Ott C , et al. Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD: A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF PATIENT PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS . J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev . 2019 ; 39 ( 5 ): 344 – 349 . doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000436 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [6]. ↵ Kaasgaard M , Bodtger U , Skou ST , et al. Long-term self-reported attendance in exercise training or lung choir and status of quality of life following initial pulmonary rehabilitation for COPD . Front Rehabil Sci . 2024 ; 5 : 1447765 . Published 2024 Sep 19. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1447765 OpenUrl CrossRef [7]. ↵ Appleton LK , Hanania NA , Adrish M . Personalized COPD Care: The Future of Precision-Based Therapies . Journal of Clinical Medicine . 2024 ; 13 ( 21 ): 6339 . doi: 10.3390/jcm13216339 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [8]. ↵ Tian X , Liu F , Li F , Ren Y , Shang H . A Network Meta-Analysis of Aerobic, Resistance, Endurance, and High-Intensity Interval Training to Prioritize Exercise for Stable COPD . Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis . 2024 ; 19 : 2035 – 2050 . Published 2024 Sep 16. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S476256 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [9]. ↵ Vitacca M , Beccaria M , Bianchi L , et al. From acute phase to rehabilitation: bridging the gap and improving the pathway for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases patients (Summary of a Pulmonologists’ Audit - September-December 2024) . Multidiscip Respir Med . 2025 ; 20 ( 1 ): 1023 . Published 2025 May 16. doi: 10.5826/mrm.2025.1023 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [10]. ↵ Zhang H , Hu D , Xu Y , Wu L , Lou L . Effect of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials . Ann Med . 2022 ; 54 ( 1 ): 262 – 273 . doi: 10.1080/07853890.2021.1999494 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [11]. Michaelchuk W , Oliveira A , Marzolini S , et al. Design and delivery of home-based telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation programs in COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis . Int J Med Inform. Published online March 31 , 2022 . doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104754 OpenUrl CrossRef [12]. Pancera S , Bianchi LNC , Porta R , Villafañe JH , Buraschi R , Lopomo NF . Muscle function and functional performance after pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prospective observational study . Sci Rep . 2022 ; 12 ( 1 ): 16386 . Published 2022 Sep 30. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-20746-y OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [13]. Guecamburu M , Coquelin A , Rapin A , et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation after severe exacerbation of COPD: a nationwide population study . Respir Res . 2023 ; 24 ( 1 ): 102 . Published 2023 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s12931-023-02393-7 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [14]. ↵ Wuyts M , Demeyer H , Vandendriessche T , et al. Content, uptake and adherence of exercise interventions after an acute exacerbation of COPD: a scoping review . Eur Respir Rev . 2025 ; 34 ( 175 ): 240172 . Published 2025 Jan 22. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0172-2024 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [15]. ↵ Fu WW , Hassett KP , Labaki WW , Valley TS , Thompson MP . Use of Pulmonary Rehabilitation after Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Hospitalization: An Analysis of Statewide Patient and Hospital Data . Ann Am Thorac Soc . 2024 ; 21 ( 12 ): 1698 – 1705 . doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202402-196OC OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [16]. ↵ Mosher CL , Belman M , Garvey C , Casaburi R . Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Medicine’s Best-kept Secret That Could Save Medicare a Billion Dollars a Year . Ann Am Thorac Soc . 2023 ; 20 ( 10 ): 1397 – 1399 . doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202304-366VP OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [17]. ↵ Hartman JE , ten Hacken NH , Boezen HM , de Greef MH . Self-efficacy for physical activity and insight into its benefits are modifiable factors associated with physical activity in people with COPD: a mixed-methods study . J Physiother . 2013 ; 59 ( 2 ): 117 – 124 . doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70164-4 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [18]. Oates GR , Niranjan SJ , Ott C , et al. Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD: A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF PATIENT PERSPECTIVES ON BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS . J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev . 2019 ; 39 ( 5 ): 344 – 349 . doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000436 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [19]. ↵ Keating A , Lee AL , Holland AE . Lack of perceived benefit and inadequate transport influence uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative study . J Physiother . 2011 ; 57 ( 3 ): 183 – 190 . doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(11)70040-6 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [20]. ↵ Kjærgaard J , Juhl CB , Lange P , Wilcke T . Adherence to early pulmonary rehabilitation after COPD exacerbation and risk of hospital readmission: a secondary analysis of the COPD-EXA-REHAB study . BMJ Open Respir Res . 2020 ; 7 ( 1 ): e000582 . doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000582 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [21]. ↵ Rochester CL . Insufficient Patient Access to Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Multifaceted Problem . Ann Am Thorac Soc . 2023 ; 20 ( 4 ): 510 – 512 . doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202301-032ED OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [22]. ↵ Mosher CL , Nanna MG , Jawitz OK , Raman V , Farrow NE , Aleem S , et al. Cost-effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation among US adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . JAMA Netw Open . 2022 ; 5 : e2218189 . doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.18189 OpenUrl CrossRef [23]. Spitzer KA , Stefan MS , Priya A , et al. A Geographic Analysis of Racial Disparities in Use of Pulmonary Rehabilitation After Hospitalization for COPD Exacerbation . Chest . 2020 ; 157 ( 5 ): 1130 – 1137 . doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.11.044 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [24]. ↵ Criner GJ , Make BJ , Dorney Koppel GA . Racial Disparities: Another Important Barrier to Pulmonary Rehabilitation Participation in Patients With COPD Posthospitalization . Chest . 2020 ; 157 ( 5 ): 1070 – 1072 . doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.01.029 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [25]. ↵ Oates GR , Hamby BW , Stepanikova I , et al. Social Determinants of Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease . COPD . 2017 ; 14 ( 6 ): 610 – 617 . doi: 10.1080/15412555.2017.1379070 OpenUrl CrossRef [26]. ↵ Selzler AM , Wald J , Sedeno M , et al. Telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation: A review of the literature and an example of a nationwide initiative to improve the accessibility of pulmonary rehabilitation . Chron Respir Dis . 2018 ; 15 ( 1 ): 41 – 47 . doi: 10.1177/1479972317724570 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [27]. ↵ Jenkins AR , Cox NS , Tappan RS , et al. Summary for Clinicians: Clinical Practice Guideline on Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Adults with Chronic Respiratory Disease . Ann Am Thorac Soc . 2024 ; 21 ( 4 ): 533 – 537 . doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202310-909CME OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [28]. ↵ Cox NS , Dal Corso S , Hansen H , et al. Telerehabilitation for chronic respiratory disease . Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2021 ; 1 ( 1 ): CD013040 . Published 2021 Jan 29. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013040.pub2 OpenUrl CrossRef [29]. ↵ Hartman M , Mináriková J , Batalik L , et al. Effects of Home-Based Training with Internet Telehealth Guidance in COPD Patients Entering Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review . Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis . 2023 ; 18 : 2305 – 2319 . Published 2023 Oct 19. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S425218 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [30]. ↵ Kim C , Choi HE , Rhee CK , Song JH , Lee JH . Efficacy of Digital Therapeutics for Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Multi-Center , Randomized Controlled Trial. Life (Basel ) . 2024 ; 14 ( 4 ): 469 . Published 2024 Apr 3. doi: 10.3390/life14040469 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [31]. ↵ Kingsnorth AP , Rowlands AV , Maylor BD , et al. A More Intense Examination of the Intensity of Physical Activity in People Living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights from Threshold-Free Markers of Activity Intensity . Int J Environ Res Public Health . 2022 ; 19 ( 19 ): 12355 . Published 2022 Sep 28. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191912355 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [32]. ↵ Lewis A , Turner LA , Fryer S , et al. The acceptability, practicality, implementation and efficacy of a physical and social activity intervention ’BreatheHappy’ for people with long-term respiratory conditions: A feasibility study . Chron Respir Dis . 2024 ; 21 : 14799731241238435 . doi: 10.1177/14799731241238435 OpenUrl CrossRef [33]. ↵ Shah , A.J. , Althobiani , M.A. , Saigal , A. et al. Wearable technology interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. npj Digit . Med . 6 , 222 ( 2023 ). doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00962-0 OpenUrl CrossRef [34]. ↵ Al Rajeh AM , Hurst JR . Monitoring of Physiological Parameters to Predict Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Systematic Review . J Clin Med . 2016 ; 5 ( 12 ): 108 . Published 2016 Nov 25. doi: 10.3390/jcm5120108 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [35]. ↵ Sanchez-Morillo D , Fernandez-Granero MA , Leon-Jimenez A . Use of predictive algorithms in-home monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma: A systematic review . Chron Respir Dis . 2016 ; 13 ( 3 ): 264 – 283 . doi: 10.1177/1479972316642365 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [36]. ↵ Mehdipour A , Wiley E , Richardson J , Beauchamp M , Kuspinar A . The Performance of Digital Monitoring Devices for Oxygen Saturation and Respiratory Rate in COPD: A Systematic Review . COPD . 2021 ; 18 ( 4 ): 469 – 475 . doi: 10.1080/15412555.2021.1945021 OpenUrl CrossRef [37]. ↵ Rutkowski S , Buekers J , Rutkowska A , Cieślik B , Szczegielniak J . Monitoring Physical Activity with a Wearable Sensor in Patients with COPD during In-Hospital Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program: A Pilot Study . Sensors . 2021 ; 21 ( 8 ): 2742 . doi: 10.3390/s21082742 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [38]. ↵ Orme MW , Weedon AE , Saukko PM , et al. Findings of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease-Sitting and Exacerbations Trial (COPD-SEAT) in Reducing Sedentary Time Using Wearable and Mobile Technologies With Educational Support: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial . JMIR Mhealth Uhealth . 2018 ; 6 ( 4 ): e84 . Published 2018 Apr 11. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.9398 OpenUrl CrossRef [39]. ↵ Kamei T , Kanamori T , Yamamoto Y , Edirippulige S . The use of wearable devices in chronic disease management to enhance adherence and improve telehealth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis . J Telemed Telecare . 2022 ; 28 ( 5 ): 342 – 359 . doi: 10.1177/1357633X20937573 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [40]. ↵ Goldsack JC , Dowling AV , Samuelson D , Patrick-Lake B , Clay I. Evaluation, Acceptance, and Qualification of Digital Measures: From Proof of Concept to Endpoint . Digit Biomark . 2021 ; 5 ( 1 ): 53 – 64 . Published 2021 Mar 23. doi: 10.1159/000514730 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [41]. ↵ Taguibao C , Ajraoui S , Centra J , et al. Identifying Concepts of Physical Activity Which Are Clinically Meaningful to Patients and Care Providers: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research . Clin Transl Sci . 2025 ; 18 ( 4 ): e70191 . doi: 10.1111/cts.70191 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [42]. ↵ Benzo MV , Hagströmer M , Nygren-Bonnier M , Benzo RP , Papp ME . Home-Based Physical Activity Program With Health Coaching for participants With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden: A Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study . Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes . 2023 ; 7 ( 5 ): 470 – 475 . Published 2023 Sep 30. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2023.07.005 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [43]. ↵ Benzo R , Hoult J , McEvoy C , et al. Promoting Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Wellness through Remote Monitoring and Health Coaching: A Clinical Trial . Ann Am Thorac Soc . 2022 ; 19 ( 11 ): 1808 – 1817 . doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202203-214OC OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [44]. ↵ Cerdán-de-Las-Heras J , Balbino F , Løkke A , Catalán-Matamoros D , Hilberg O , Bendstrup E . Effect of a New Tele-Rehabilitation Program versus Standard Rehabilitation in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease . J Clin Med . 2021 ; 11 ( 1 ): 11 . Published 2021 Dec 21. doi: 10.3390/jcm11010011 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [45]. ↵ Chaplin E , Barnes A , Newby C , Houchen-Wolloff L , Singh SJ . Comparison of the Impact of Conventional and Web-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation on Physical Activity in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Exploratory Feasibility Study . JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol . 2022 ; 9 ( 1 ): e28875 . Published 2022 Mar 10. doi: 10.2196/28875 OpenUrl CrossRef [46]. ↵ Federman AD , O’Conor R , Nnemnbeng J , et al. Feasibility Trial of a Comprehensive, Highly Patient-Centered COPD Self-Management Support Program . Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis . 2024 ; 11 ( 1 ): 13 – 25 . doi: 10.15326/jcopdf.2023.0419 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [47]. ↵ Godtfredsen N , Frølich A , Bieler T , et al. 12-months follow-up of pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus standard pulmonary rehabilitation: A multicentre randomised clinical trial in patients with severe COPD . Respir Med . 2020 ; 172 : 106129 . doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2020.106129 OpenUrl CrossRef [48]. ↵ Hansen H , Bieler T , Beyer N , et al. Supervised pulmonary tele-rehabilitation versus pulmonary rehabilitation in severe COPD: a randomised multicentre trial . Thorax . 2020 ; 75 ( 5 ): 413 – 421 . doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2019-214246 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [49]. ↵ Horton EJ , Ruksenaite J , Mitchell K , Sewell L , Newby C , Singh SJ . A Comparison of Physical Activity Between Home-Based and Centre-Based Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Randomised Controlled Secondary Analysis . Front Rehabil Sci . 2021 ; 2 : 743441 . Published 2021 Oct 26. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2021.743441 OpenUrl CrossRef [50]. ↵ Paneroni M , Colombo F , Papalia A , et al. Is Telerehabilitation a Safe and Viable Option for Patients with COPD? A Feasibility Study . COPD . 2015 ; 12 ( 2 ): 217 – 225 . doi: 10.3109/15412555.2014.933794 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [51]. ↵ Tabak M , op den Akker H , Hermens H . Motivational cues as real-time feedback for changing daily activity behavior of patients with COPD . Patient Educ Couns . 2014 ; 94 ( 3 ): 372 – 378 . doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.014 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [52]. ↵ Tabak M , Vollenbroek-Hutten MM , van der Valk PD , van der Palen J , Hermens HJ . A telerehabilitation intervention for patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: a randomized controlled pilot trial . Clin Rehabil . 2014 ; 28 ( 6 ): 582 – 591 . doi: 10.1177/0269215513512495 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [53]. ↵ Tsai LL , McNamara RJ , Moddel C , Alison JA , McKenzie DK , McKeough ZJ . Home-based telerehabilitation via real-time videoconferencing improves endurance exercise capacity in patients with COPD: The randomized controlled TeleR Study . Respirology . 2017 ; 22 ( 4 ): 699 – 707 . doi: 10.1111/resp.12966 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [54]. ↵ Vasilopoulou M , Papaioannou AI , Kaltsakas G , et al. Home-based maintenance tele-rehabilitation reduces the risk for acute exacerbations of COPD, hospitalisations and emergency department visits . Eur Respir J . 2017 ; 49 ( 5 ): 1602129 . Published 2017 May 25. doi: 10.1183/13993003.02129-2016 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [55]. ↵ Pitta F , Takaki MY , Oliveira NH , et al. Relationship between pulmonary function and physical activity in daily life in patients with COPD . Respir Med . 2008 ; 102 ( 8 ): 1203 – 1207 . doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.03.004 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [56]. ↵ Spruit MA , Pitta F , McAuley E , ZuWallack RL , Nici L . Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Physical Activity in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease . Am J Respir Crit Care Med . 2015 ; 192 ( 8 ): 924 – 933 . doi: 10.1164/rccm.201505-0929CI OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [57]. ↵ Gloeckl R , Schneeberger T , Jarosch I , Kenn K . Pulmonary Rehabilitation and Exercise Training in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease . Dtsch Arztebl Int . 2018 ; 115 ( 8 ): 117 – 123 . doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0117 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [58]. ↵ Pierobon A , Sini Bottelli E , Ranzini L , et al. COPD patients’ self-reported adherence, psychosocial factors and mild cognitive impairment in pulmonary rehabilitation . Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis . 2017 ; 12 : 2059 – 2067 . Published 2017 Jul 18. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S133586 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [59]. ↵ Aschbacher K , Hendershot CS , Tison G , et al. Machine learning prediction of blood alcohol concentration: a digital signature of smart-breathalyzer behavior . NPJ Digit Med . 2021 ; 4 ( 1 ): 74 . Published 2021 Apr 20. doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00441-4 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [60]. ↵ Shorofsky M , Bourbeau J , Kimoff J , et al. Impaired Sleep Quality in COPD Is Associated With Exacerbations: The CanCOLD Cohort Study . Chest . 2019 ; 156 ( 5 ): 852 – 863 . doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.132 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [61]. ↵ Espie CA , Emsley R , Kyle SD , et al. Effect of Digital Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia on Health, Psychological Well-being, and Sleep-Related Quality of Life: A Randomized Clinical Trial . JAMA Psychiatry . 2019 ; 76 ( 1 ): 21 – 30 . doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.2745 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [62]. ↵ Stone IS , Barnes NC , Petersen SE . Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease? . Heart . 2012 ; 98 ( 14 ): 1055 – 1062 . doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301759 OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [63]. ↵ Tamura Y , Nomura A , Kagiyama N , Mizuno A , Node K . Digitalomics, digital intervention, and designing future: The next frontier in cardiology . J Cardiol . 2024 ; 83 ( 5 ): 318 – 322 . doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2023.12.002 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [64]. ↵ Siddi S , Bailon R , Giné-Vázquez I , et al. The usability of daytime and night-time heart rate dynamics as digital biomarkers of depression severity . Psychol Med . 2023 ; 53 ( 8 ): 3249 – 3260 . doi: 10.1017/S0033291723001034 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [65]. ↵ Crooks MG , den Brinker A , Hayman Y , et al. Continuous Cough Monitoring Using Ambient Sound Recording During Convalescence from a COPD Exacerbation . Lung . 2017 ; 195 ( 3 ): 289 – 294 . doi: 10.1007/s00408-017-9996-2 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [66]. ↵ Waschki B , Kirsten A , Holz O , et al. Physical activity is the strongest predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with COPD: a prospective cohort study . Chest . 2011 ; 140 ( 2 ): 331 – 342 . doi: 10.1378/chest.10-2521 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [67]. ↵ Özden G , Parlar Kılıç S . Breathing better: A tech-monitored study of positive expiratory pressure and reading aloud for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . Int J Nurs Pract . 2023 ; 29 ( 6 ): e13198 . doi: 10.1111/ijn.13198 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [68]. ↵ Moy ML , Danilack VA , Weston NA , Garshick E . Daily step counts in a US cohort with COPD . Respir Med . 2012 ; 106 ( 7 ): 962 – 969 . doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.03.016 OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [69]. ↵ Park HY , Kong S , Lee M , et al. Digital health technologies for improving the management of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease . Front Digit Health . 2025 ; 7 : 1640585 . Published 2025 Aug 6. doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2025.1640585 OpenUrl CrossRef View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted September 04, 2025. Download PDF Data/Code Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs Stephanie Zawada , Louis Faust , Caden Collins , Moein Enayati , Roberto Benzo , Emma Fortune medRxiv 2025.09.02.25334970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.02.25334970 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Using wearable and nearable devices in telerehabilitation for COPD: A review of digital endpoints in home-based programs Stephanie Zawada , Louis Faust , Caden Collins , Moein Enayati , Roberto Benzo , Emma Fortune medRxiv 2025.09.02.25334970; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.02.25334970 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Health Informatics Subject Areas All Articles Addiction Medicine (569) Allergy and Immunology (863) Anesthesia (300) Cardiovascular Medicine (4442) Dentistry and Oral Medicine (444) Dermatology (383) Emergency Medicine (609) Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (1511) Epidemiology (15230) Forensic Medicine (30) Gastroenterology (1126) Genetic and Genomic Medicine (6610) Geriatric Medicine (668) Health Economics (998) Health Informatics (4542) Health Policy (1370) Health Systems and Quality Improvement (1613) Hematology (543) HIV/AIDS (1266) Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (15923) Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (1103) Medical Education (623) Medical Ethics (147) Nephrology (668) Neurology (6607) Nursing (346) Nutrition (999) Obstetrics and Gynecology (1146) Occupational and Environmental Health (957) Oncology (3338) Ophthalmology (974) Orthopedics (369) Otolaryngology (420) Pain Medicine (436) Palliative Medicine (130) Pathology (665) Pediatrics (1693) Pharmacology and Therapeutics (692) Primary Care Research (712) Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (5448) Public and Global Health (9239) Radiology and Imaging (2202) Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (1370) Respiratory Medicine (1196) Rheumatology (596) Sexual and Reproductive Health (714) Sports Medicine (530) Surgery (712) Toxicology (99) Transplantation (289) Urology (265) (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'a01fc95e098e73d5',t:'MTc3OTgzMDAzNg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();