Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37495249›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2023

A critical interpretive synthesis of the lived experiences and health and patient-reported outcomes of people living with COPD who isolated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Rose Swain, Faye Forsyth, Ben Bowers, Frances Early, Isla Kuhn, Sagar Shrivastva, Rachel Tufnell, Jonathan Fuld

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rose SwainDepartment of Infection and Inflammation Research, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK rose.swain@nhs.net.
Faye ForsythPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2107-3690
Ben BowersPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Frances EarlyDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Isla KuhnMedical Library, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sagar ShrivastvaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Rachel TufnellCambridge Breathlessness Intervention Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9415-4745
Jonathan FuldDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo determine the lived experiences of people with COPD who isolated at home during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and explore how these experiences affected health and patient-reported outcomes.

methodsKeyword searches were performed in five bibliographic databases. Critical interpretative synthesis (CIS) methods were used to interrogate and understand patterns across studies.

results23 studies were identified; three employed qualitative methods and 20 quantitative methods. Application of CIS methods highlighted a core synthetic concept that appeared to underpin experiences and outcomes, that of a heightened perception of risk. Using the Risk Perception Model as a framework, we found that cognitive factors such as knowledge of underlying health status and the transmissibility of COVID-19; experiential factors including previous episodes of breathlessness and hospitalisation; and sociocultural factors such as access to trusted sources of information, influenced perceptions of risk. In turn, this influenced behaviour, which translated to outcomes such as reduced hospitalisations, deconditioning and social isolation as people avoided "high-risk" situations and settings.

conclusionsPatients with COPD who isolated at home during the COVID-19 pandemic had a heightened perception of risk which was influenced by cognitive, experiential and sociocultural factors. The consequences of this were varied and included both positive (reduced exacerbations and hospitalisations) and negative (social isolation, deconditioning, diminished capacity for self-care) outcomes. Understanding risk and the impacts it can have could help clinicians to support people with COPD return to their pre-pandemic way of living and enable better communication of ongoing risk from respiratory viral illness.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveHumansPalliative CarePandemicsPatient Reported Outcome Measures

Identifiers

PMID37495249
PMCPMC10369166
OpenAlexW4385277501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.