{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027293064876957495, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004921700223713647, 'mean_word_length': 5.388571428571429, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Burden and Unmet Needs with Portable Oxygen in Patients on Long Term Oxygen Therapy.

RATIONALE
Over 1.5 million Americans receive Long Term Oxygen Therapy (LTOT) for treatment of chronic hypoxemia to optimize functional status and quality of life. However, current portable oxygen equipment, including portable gas tanks (GTs), portable liquid tanks (LTs), and portable oxygen concentrators (POCs), each have limitations that can hinder patient mobility and daily activities.


OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to examine patient experiences with portable oxygen to guide equipment innovation and thereby improve patient care on oxygen therapy.


METHODS
Burden and unmet needs with portable oxygen equipment were assessed in 836 LTOT patients with chronic lung disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, and pulmonary hypertension) through an online survey. The survey included a combination of multiple choice, Likert scale, short-answer, and open-ended questions. Distribution was achieved through patient support organizations, including the US COPD Coalition, the Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, and the Pulmonary Hypertension Association.


RESULTS
Improvements in portability were ranked as the highest priority by patients across all equipment types, followed by increases in duration of oxygen supply for GTs, accessibility for LTs, and flow capabilities for POCs. All device types were found to be burdensome, with the greatest burden among GT users, 51% of whom characterized GT use as "Strenuous" or "Extremely Strenuous" (high burden). POCs ranked as the most common (61%) and least burdensome device; however, 29% of POC users still reported high associated burden. Forty-seven percent of POC respondents described using a POC despite it not meeting their oxygen needs to benefit from advantages over alternative equipment. Among non-POC users, limited oxygen flow rate capabilities and cost were the top reasons preventing POC use.


CONCLUSION
While improvements have been made to portable oxygen equipment, this study highlights the burden that remains and reveals a clear need for advances in technology to improve functional status and quality of life of portable LTOT users.