ArticlePloS one2023
The handheld fan for chronic breathlessness: Clinicians' experiences and views of implementation in clinical practice.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fan Therapy for Alleviating Dyspnea in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe handheld fan ('fan') is useful for chronic breathlessness management, however little is known about clinicians' implementation of the fan in clinical practice.
aimTo explore clinicians' experiences and views of fan implementation.
methodsA qualitative approach, using semi-structured interviews. Participants were purposively sampled from clinicians who had completed an on-line fan implementation survey and were willing to participate. A topic guide was developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using an inductive approach informed by the TDF.
findingsTwelve clinicians participated (doctors n = 4; nurses n = 4; allied health professionals n = 4) from respiratory and palliative care. Analysis generated three major themes: i) Clinician knowledge and skills in fan implementation, ii) environmental constraints on fan use and iii) clinician beliefs about the consequences of fan use. Implementation by clinicians was positively influenced by having a scientific rationale for fan use presented (mechanism of action). Clinicians believed that the fan relieved breathlessness and did not carry a significant infection risk. Opportunity for fan use varied across healthcare settings; key environmental influences were COVID-19 restrictions, lack of access to resources and funding to provide fans, particularly in acute and respiratory services. Clinicians commonly encountered scepticism among patients and colleagues who felt the fan was an implausible intervention for breathlessness.
conclusionImplementation of the fan is motivated by clinician beliefs about patient-benefit, a scientific rationale to counter clinician and patient scepticism, and access to fans in clinic. Funding to allow patients to be supplied with and taught how to use a fan would support uptake. Research is needed to address concerns about infection risk.
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.