ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2021
Treatment Preferences of Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from Qualitative Interviews and Focus Groups in the United Kingdom, United States, and Germany.
Article in Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping the Global distribution, risk factors, and temporal trends of COPD incidence and mortality (1990-2021): ecological analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Article
- Preferences of patients with multiple chronic diseases for medication in rural areas of an Eastern Province China: a discrete choice experiment.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- The Training to Improve Dyspnoea Study- Patient Experiences of Using a High Frequency Airway Oscillating Device.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Article
- Individual trajectory-based care for COPD: getting closer, but not there yet.ERJ open research · 2021Review
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 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA wide range of therapeutic regimens, including single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs), are now available for the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, an improved understanding of patient preferences may be valuable to inform physician prescribing decisions. This study was performed to assess the factors considered by patients when making decisions about their COPD treatments using qualitative techniques.
methodsIn the United Kingdom, United States and Germany, individual qualitative interviews (n=10 per country) and focus groups (1 per country; [United Kingdom, n=4; United States, n=6; Germany, n=6 participants]) were conducted. Interviews and focus groups were semi‑structured, lasting approximately 60 minutes, and focused on treatment preferences. Data were analyzed according to emerging themes identified from the interviews; qualitative thematic analysis of the data was performed using specialist software.
resultsIn interviews and focus groups, efficacy, ease of use, and lower frequency of use were favored attributes for current treatment, while side effects, medication taste, and more complex administration techniques were key dislikes. In interviews, most participants would consider a switch in medication, mainly for improved efficacy, but also to reduce medication frequency or following physician advice. Overall, efficacy and ease of use were the 2 most important attributes reported in interviews in all 3 countries.
conclusionPatients with COPD have preferences for certain attributes of medication, highlighting the multi-faceted nature of treatment effectiveness and the importance of the delivery device.These results were subsequently used to inform the design of a discrete choice experiment.
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.