ArticleHealth services research2023
Organization of pulmonary hypertension care in non-expert care settings: Lessons learned from a multi-site study.
Article in Health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delays in the diagnosis and management of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a simulated patient cases study across four European countries.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- Cluster analysis identifies novel real-world lung disease-pulmonary hypertension subphenotypes: implications for treatment response.ERJ open research · 2024Article
- Organization of pulmonary hypertension care in non-expert care settings: Lessons learned from a multi-site study.Health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine how select Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites organized care for patients with pulmonary hypertension (PH), with a focus on describing existing practices and identifying unmet needs within the sites. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY
settingSemi-structured interviews across seven diverse VA sites. STUDY
designQualitative multiple-site study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsWe interviewed 54 key informants including pulmonologists, cardiologists, primary care providers, advanced care practitioners, pharmacists, and clinical leaders to assess the structures and processes of PH care delivery. We analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis and constructed site profiles for each site, comparing profiles to existing guidelines for PH expert centers. PRINCIPAL
findingsSites varied considerably in how they organized PH care, with wide variation in the availability of structures and processes recommended for expert centers, including availability of PH expertise and PH-specific resources, multidisciplinary approach to care, establishment of clear referral pathways, and presence of PH education. Further, participants identified three areas of unmet need not directly addressed within current guidelines, including better integration of pharmacists into multidisciplinary teams, early and routine involvement of palliative care, and improved care coordination efforts.
conclusionsThe rising prevalence of PH and evolution of treatments for common PH subgroups underscore the need to standardize PH care delivery in non-expert care settings to improve care quality and patient outcomes. The insight gained from this study may inform the development of guidance appropriate for care settings outside of expert centers.
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.