Whitney Smith
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Whitney Smith has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Catherine O. Durham
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29466, USA
1 shared publication - Emily Morgan
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29466, USA
1 shared publication - Jessica Madiraca
School of Nursing, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA
1 shared publication - Kathleen Oare Lindell
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
1 shared publication - Lianne Cole
Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115, USA
1 shared publication - Sarah Miller
College of Nursing, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29466, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 15 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Nursing Reports
- Vol. 15 (11) , 402
Clinical Provider Perspectives on Remote Spirometry and mHealth for COPD
Background/Objectives: COPD is a leading cause of death in the US, with higher morbidity and mortality in rural areas that lack specialized pulmonary care. Mobile health (mHealth) tools, including remote spirometry, may fill this gap, yet healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives on utility and implementation of remote spirometry and mHealth for COPD management in these settings remain unexplored. This study aimed to examine HCPs’ perspectives of mHealth with remote spirometry to inform future implementation in rural and low medical access settings. Methods: Five HCPs working in rural or medically limited settings in South Carolina participated in a deliberative discussion focus group. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore insights into feasibility, clinical utility, and implementation needs. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations. Results: Participants reported that remote spirometry and mHealth had potential to support COPD treatment, increase healthcare access, and support self-management. Key facilitators identified were access to smartphones, potential for individualized COPD care, and visual tools for patient engagement. Barriers included risk of time and workload burden, data information overload, and technological limitations. Participants emphasized the need for team training, thoughtful integration into existing workflows, customizable data displays, and robust support for patient onboarding. Conclusions: Providers viewed mHealth applications with remote spirometry as a valuable tool with potential to improve COPD care but identified critical implementation needs. Participants emphasized that successful integration would require structured support, user-centered design, and attention to reimbursement and workflow alignment to enhance sustainability and patient/provider engagement.
- 15 November 2025
- Published by MDPI AG in Nursing Reports
- Vol. 15 (11) , 402
Open AccessClinical Provider Perspectives on Remote Spirometry and mHealth for COPD
Background/Objectives: COPD is a leading cause of death in the US, with higher morbidity and mortality in rural areas that lack specialized pulmonary care. Mobile health (mHealth) tools, including remote spirometry, may fill this gap, yet healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives on utility and implementation of remote spirometry and mHealth for COPD management in these settings remain unexplored. This study aimed to examine HCPs’ perspectives of mHealth with remote spirometry to inform future implementation in rural and low medical access settings. Methods: Five HCPs working in rural or medically limited settings in South Carolina participated in a deliberative discussion focus group. A semi-structured interview guide was used to explore insights into feasibility, clinical utility, and implementation needs. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations. Results: Participants reported that remote spirometry and mHealth had potential to support COPD treatment, increase healthcare access, and support self-management. Key facilitators identified were access to smartphones, potential for individualized COPD care, and visual tools for patient engagement. Barriers included risk of time and workload burden, data information overload, and technological limitations. Participants emphasized the need for team training, thoughtful integration into existing workflows, customizable data displays, and robust support for patient onboarding. Conclusions: Providers viewed mHealth applications with remote spirometry as a valuable tool with potential to improve COPD care but identified critical implementation needs. Participants emphasized that successful integration would require structured support, user-centered design, and attention to reimbursement and workflow alignment to enhance sustainability and patient/provider engagement.