Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26028347›Full record

Trial reportNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015

HELPing older people with very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HELP-COPD): mixed-method feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial of a novel intervention.

Susan Buckingham, Marilyn Kendall, Susie Ferguson, William MacNee, Aziz Sheikh, Patrick White, Allison Worth, Kirsty Boyd, Scott A Murray, Hilary Pinnock

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in NPJ primary care respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Does Cognitive Function Influence the Benefits of Multicomponent Team Interventions?Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Susan BuckinghamAllergy and Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Marilyn KendallPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Susie FergusonCentre for Inflammation Research, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
William MacNeeCentre for Inflammation Research, Queen's Medical Research Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Aziz SheikhAllergy and Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Patrick WhiteDivision of Health and Social Care Research, Department of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Allison WorthWellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kirsty BoydPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Scott A MurrayPrimary Palliative Care Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hilary PinnockAllergy and Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

The Dunhill Medical Trust R210/0711
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtending palliative care to those with advanced non-malignant disease is advocated, but the implications in specific conditions are poorly understood.

aimsWe piloted a novel nurse-led intervention, HELPing older people with very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HELP-COPD), undertaken 4 weeks after discharge from hospital, which sought to identify and address the holistic care needs of people with severe COPD.

methodsThis 6-month mixed-method feasibility pilot trial randomised (ratio 3:1) patients to HELP-COPD or usual care. We assessed the feasibility of using validated questionnaires as outcome measures and analysed the needs/actions recorded in the HELP-COPD records. Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients, carers and professionals explored the perceptions of HELP-COPD. Verbatim transcriptions and field notes were analysed using Normalisation Process Theory as a framework.

resultsWe randomised 32 patients (24 to HELP-COPD); 19 completed the study (death=3, ill-health=4, declined=6). The HELP-COPD record noted a mean of 1.6 actions/assessment, mostly provision of information or self-help actions: only five referrals were made. Most patients were positive about HELP-COPD, discussing their concerns and coping strategies in all domains, but the questionnaires were burdensome for some patients. Adaptation to their slowly progressive disability and a strong preference to rely on family support was reflected in limited acceptance of formal services. Professionals perceived HELP-COPD as addressing an important aspect of care, although timing overlapped with discharge planning.

conclusionsThe HELP-COPD intervention was well received by patients and the concept resonated with professionals, although delivery post discharge overlapped with existing services. Integration of brief holistic care assessments in the routine primary care management of COPD may be more appropriate.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalFeasibility StudiesHolistic HealthHumansNursing AssessmentPilot ProjectsPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

Identifiers

PMID26028347
PMCPMC4532154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.