ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2018
Multiprofessional COPD care in Austria-challenges and approaches : Results of a qualitative study.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Pilot Economic Evaluation of a Nature-Based Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Austria.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a frequent disease of the lungs. Its prevalence was estimated to be 26% in the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) I and 11% for GOLD II-IV in Austria. Globally, it ranks third in mortality rate. The particular challenge is that care for these patients falls short due to the lack of structured integrated care. The aim was to assess the current status of multiprofessional COPD care in Austria and identify gaps and potentials.
methodsWe conducted guided focus group interviews between March and July 2016 addressing current COPD care and treatment gaps with the following professional and interest groups: general practitioners, nurses, patients, pharmacists, physiotherapists and pulmonologists. We interviewed 23 patients and 27 healthcare professionals. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded into 12 relevant categories.
resultsThere needs to be a shift in thinking from treatment-based care to prevention. Patients, just like healthcare professionals, need periodic updates and comprehensive information on this disease. Creating internet platforms with useful information for COPD patients and solving the data privacy issues of the Austrian electronic medical record (ELGA) are also perceived as viable steps. There is a need and request for healthcare professionals to work as a team with clear COPD management guidelines in the outpatient sector, the establishment of outpatient rehabilitation centers as well as creating a new professional profile, the COPD nurse.
conclusionCurrent COPD care needs to be reorganized, particularly in the outpatient sector, to address the needs of patients and healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.