ArticleChronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.)2021
Does Evaluation and Management of COPD Follow Therapeutic Strategy Recommendations?
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. It is linked to trial NCT07104136 (Improvement of Adherence to Treatment Among COPD Patients in Primary Care by Physician-directed Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Improvement of Adherence to Treatment Among COPD Patients in Primary Care by Physician-directed Intervention
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical strategies for achieving system change in the US: lessons and insights from the CONQUEST quality improvement programme.Primary health care research & development · 2025Review
- Adherence to Inhaled Therapy in Patients with COPD Associated to Pneumoconiosis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecommendations for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis and management requires symptom and exacerbation risk assessment. Adherence to these recommendations appears to be limited. We examined the impact of a COPD quality improvement (QI) program in the Southeastern United States.
methodsFrom 2017 to 2018, nine pulmonary and 15 primary care physicians were included in our study and asked to identify 6 to 7 of their COPD patients using maintenance COPD medications with at least 2 office visits in the past year. A separate group of COPD patients (n=135 pulmonary and 165 primary care) from the same practices were evaluated. Physicians underwent focused, educational, peer-to-peer small group webinars. Data were collected from physicians and their patients using a systematic survey. Chart audits occurred at baseline and 6 months after the webinars.
resultsThe majority of physicians (67%) saw ≥ 20 COPD patients/week. There were important discrepancies between the care clinicians thought they provided, and the care recalled by their patients. Clinicians felt that 33% of their patients experienced at least 2 exacerbations in the past year; 56% of their patients reported this frequency. There was discrepancy in the clinicians' interpretations and the patients' reasons for discontinuing their medications and in the use of referrals. Self-reported changes were noted by clinicians after educational webinars and improvements in patient care were noted in the year following intervention.
conclusionWe identified notable discrepancies between the clinicians' impression of care provided and the components actually recalled by their patients. We also identified improvements in processes of care and outcomes following an educational intervention based on the principles of audit and feedback.
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.