Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28077097›Full record

Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2017

What patients really think about asthma guidelines: barriers to guideline implementation from the patients' perspective.

H Lingner, B Burger, P Kardos, C P Criée, H Worth, E Hummers-Pradier

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Implementation of Coach McLungsBMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Perspectives on decisions for treatment and care in severe asthma.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

H LingnerCentre for Public Health and Healthcare, Biomedical Research in Endstage and Obstructive Lung Disease Hannover (BREATH), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. lingner.heidrun@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2074-0367
B BurgerKlinik für Psychosomatische Medizin, DIAKOVERE gGmbH - Henriettenstiftung, Hannover, Germany.
P KardosGroup Practice & Centre for Allergy, Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Frankfurt, Germany.
C P CriéeDepartment of Pneumology, Respiratory Care, Sleep Medicine, Evangelisches Krankenhaus Göttingen-Weende gGmbH, Bovenden-Lenglern, Germany.
H WorthDepartments of Pneumology and Cardiology, Hospital Fürth, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Fürth, Germany.
E Hummers-PradierDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of asthma does not always comply with asthma guidelines (AG). This may be rooted in direct or indirect resistance on the doctors' and/or patients' side or be caused by the healthcare system. To assess whether patients' concepts and attitudes are really an implementation barrier for AG, we analysed the patients' perspective of a "good asthma therapy" and contrasted their wishes with current recommendations.

methodsUsing a qualitative exploratory design, topic centred focus group (FG) discussions were performed until theoretical saturation was reached. Inclusion criteria were an asthma diagnosis and age above 18. FG sessions were recorded audio-visually and analysed via a mapping technique and content analysis performed according to Mayring (supported by MAXQDA®). Participants' speech times and the proportion of time devoted to different themes were calculated using the Videograph System® and related to the content analysis.

resultsThirteen men and 24 women aged between 20 and 77 from rural and urban areas attended five FG. Some patients had been recently diagnosed with asthma, others years previously or in childhood. The following topics were addressed: (a) concern about or rejection of therapy components, particularly corticosteroids, which sometimes resulted in autonomous uncommunicated medication changes, (b) lack of time or money for optimal treatment, (c) insufficient involvement in therapy choices and (d) a desire for greater empowerment, (e) suboptimal communication between healthcare professionals and (f) difficulties with recommendations conflicting with daily life. Primarily, (g) participants wanted more time with doctors to discuss difficulties and (h) all aspects of living with an impairing condition.

conclusionsWe identified some important patient driven barriers to implementing AG recommendations. In order to advance AG implementation and improve asthma treatment, the patients' perspective needs to be considered before drafting new versions of AG. These issues should be addressed at the planning stage.

trial registrationDRKS00000562 (German Clinical Trials Registry).

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient CompliancePhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAsthmaFemaleFocus GroupsGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID28077097
PMCPMC5225589

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.