Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26379121›Full record

ReviewNPJ primary care respiratory medicine2015

Understanding patient participation behaviour in studies of COPD support programmes such as pulmonary rehabilitation and self-management: a qualitative synthesis with application of theory.

Ratna Sohanpal, Liz Steed, Thomas Mars, Stephanie J C Taylor

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review 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 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Current Status of the Treatment of COPD in China: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Ratna SohanpalCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Liz SteedCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Thomas MarsCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Stephanie J C TaylorCentre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2010-03-130
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the problem of poor patient participation in studies of self-management (SM) and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes (together referred to as COPD support programmes) is established. Understanding this problem beyond the previously reported socio-demographics and clinical factors is critical.

aimsThe aim of this study was to explore factors that explain patient participation in studies of COPD support programmes.

methodsThematic 'framework' synthesis was conducted on literature published from 1984 to 1 February 2015. Emergent themes and subthemes were mapped onto the adapted 'attitude-social influence-external barriers' and the 'self-regulation' models to produce analytical themes.

resultsTen out of 12 studies were included: PR (n=9) and SM (n=1). Three descriptive themes with 38 subthemes were mapped onto the models' constructs, and it generated four analytical themes: 'attitude', 'social influences' and 'illness' and 'intervention representations'. The following factors influenced (1) attendance-helping oneself through health improvements, perceived control of worsening condition, perceived benefits and positive past experience of the programme, as well as perceived positive influence of professionals; (2) non-attendance-perceived negative effects and negative past experience of the programme, perceived physical/practical concerns related to attendance, perceived severity of condition/symptoms and perceived negative influence of professionals/friends; (3) dropout-no health improvements perceived after attending a few sessions of the programme, perceived severity of the condition and perceived physical/practical concerns related to attendance.

conclusionsPsychosocial factors including perceived practical/physical concerns related to attendance influenced patients' participation in COPD support programmes. Addressing the negative beliefs/perceptions via behaviour change interventions may help improve participation in COPD support programmes and, ultimately, patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPatient DropoutsPatient ParticipationPsychological TheoryPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveRespiratory TherapySelf Care

Identifiers

PMID26379121
PMCPMC4588031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.