Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26703923›Full record

Trial reportChronic respiratory disease2016

An economic evaluation of a self-management programme of activity, coping and education for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Melina Dritsaki, Vicki Johnson-Warrington, Katy Mitchell, Sally Singh, Karen Rees

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Chronic respiratory disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melina DritsakiDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK m.s.dritsaki@warwick.ac.uk.
Vicki Johnson-WarringtonCentre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Katy MitchellCentre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Sally SinghCentre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Glenfield Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Karen ReesDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBGlenfield Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0808-17146
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim was to undertake a cost-utility analysis of a self-management programme of activity, coping and education (SPACE) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The analysis was conducted alongside a six-month randomized controlled trial in 30 primary care settings. The economic analysis used data from 184 patients with confirmed diagnosis of COPD, forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity ratio <0.7 and with grade 2-5 on the Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale. Participants received either a self-management programme consisting of an education manual (SPACE for COPD) and consultation or usual care. Six-month costs were estimated from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on patient responses at baseline and six months.The mean difference in costs between usual care and SPACE FOR COPD programme was -£27.18 (95% confidence interval (CI); -£122.59 to £68.25) while mean difference in QALYs was -0.10 (95% CI; -0.17 to -0.02). The results suggest that the intervention is more costly and more effective than usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 97% at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. We conclude that the SPACE FOR COPD programme is cost-effective compared to usual care.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalPatient Education as TopicCost-Benefit AnalysisForced Expiratory VolumeHumansPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSelf CareCOPDcost-effectiveness analysiscost-utility analysiseducationRCTself-management

Identifiers

PMID26703923
PMCPMC5720203
OpenAlexW2262001486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.