Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35387636›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2022

Implementing the battery-operated hand-held fan as an evidence-based, non-pharmacological intervention for chronic breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a qualitative study of the views of specialist respiratory clinicians.

Tim Luckett, Mary Roberts, Tracy Smith, Maja Garcia, Sarah Dunn, Flavia Swan, Caleb Ferguson, Slavica Kochovska, Jane L Phillips, Mark Pearson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Application of Fan Therapy in Alleviating Dyspnea.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Tim LuckettIMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care Through Clinical Research and Translation), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Building 10, Level 3, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia. tim.luckett@uts.edu.au.
Mary RobertsDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Tracy SmithDepartment of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Maja GarciaIMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care Through Clinical Research and Translation), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Building 10, Level 3, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Sarah DunnRespiratory Medicine Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Flavia SwanWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Kingston Upon Hull, Yorkshire, UK.
Caleb FergusonWestern Sydney Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Blacktown Clinical & Research School, Western Sydney Local Health District, Western Sydney University, Blacktown Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Slavica KochovskaIMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care Through Clinical Research and Translation), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Building 10, Level 3, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Jane L PhillipsIMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care Through Clinical Research and Translation), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Building 10, Level 3, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Mark PearsonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Kingston Upon Hull, Yorkshire, UK.
David C CurrowIMPACCT (Improving Palliative, Aged and Chronic Care Through Clinical Research and Translation), Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Building 10, Level 3, 235 Jones St, Ultimo, Sydney, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Miriam J JohnsonWolfson Palliative Care Research Centre, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Kingston Upon Hull, Yorkshire, UK.
University of Technology Sydney · AUUniversity of Hull · GBHull York Medical School · GBPrince of Wales Hospital · AUWestern Sydney University · AUWestmead Hospital · AUWestmead Institute for Medical Research · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe battery-operated hand-held fan ('fan') is an inexpensive and portable non-pharmacological intervention for chronic breathlessness. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests the fan reduces breathlessness intensity and improves physical activity in patients with a range of advanced chronic conditions. Qualitative data from these trials suggests the fan may also reduce anxiety and improve daily functioning for many patients. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to the fan's implementation in specialist respiratory care as a non-pharmacological intervention for chronic breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

methodsA qualitative approach was taken, using focus groups. Participants were clinicians from any discipline working in specialist respiratory care at two hospitals. Questions asked about current fan-related practice and perceptions regarding benefits, harms and mechanisms, and factors influencing its implementation. Analysis used a mixed inductive/deductive approach.

resultsForty-nine participants from nursing (n = 30), medical (n = 13) and allied health (n = 6) disciplines participated across 9 focus groups. The most influential facilitator was a belief that the fan's benefits outweighed disadvantages. Clinicians' beliefs about the fan's mechanisms determined which patient sub-groups they targeted, for example anxious or palliative/end-stage patients. Barriers to implementation included a lack of clarity about whose role it was to implement the fan, what advice to provide patients, and limited access to fans in hospitals. Few clinicians implemented the fan for acute-on-chronic breathlessness or in combination with other interventions.

conclusionImplementation of the fan in specialist respiratory care may require service- and clinician-level interventions to ensure it is routinely recommended as a first-line intervention for chronic breathlessness in patients for whom this symptom is of concern, regardless of COPD stage.

Indexed as

DyspneaPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveChronic DiseaseHumansPalliative CareQualitative ResearchBreathlessnessCOPDNon-pharmacological managementQualitative

Identifiers

PMID35387636
PMCPMC8985391
OpenAlexW4226200283

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.