ArticleJournal of patient-centered research and reviews2023
Pulmonary Specialist-Supported Health Coaching Delivered by Lay Personnel Improves Receipt of Quality Care for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of patient-centered research and reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary specialist health coach consultation model: a randomized controlled trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Trial
- Impact of an Integrated Medical-Nursing Clinical Pathway on 30-Day Readmission and Long-Term Prognosis in Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Real-World Data.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Half of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) do not receive high-quality, evidenced-based care as described in international guidelines. We conducted secondary data analysis of a previously published study to assess the ability of a model of lay health coaching to improve provision of guideline-based care in a primary care setting. Methods: As part of a randomized controlled trial, we recruited English- and Spanish-speaking patients with moderate to severe COPD from primary care clinics serving a low-income, predominantly African American population. Participants were randomized to receive usual care or 9 months of health coaching from primary care personnel informed by a pulmonary specialist practitioner. Outcome measures included prescription of appropriate inhaler therapy, participation in COPD-related education, engagement with specialty care, prescription of smoking cessation medications, and patient ratings of the quality of care. Results: Baseline quality measures did not differ between study arms. At 9 months, coached patients were more likely (increase of 9.3% over usual care; P=0.014) to have received guideline-based inhalers compared to those in usual care. Coached patients were more likely to engage with pulmonary specialty care (increase of 8.3% over usual care with at least 1 visit; P=0.04) and educational classes (increase of 5.3% over usual care; P=0.03). Receipt of smoking cessation medications among patients smoking at baseline in the health coaching group increased 21.1 percentage points more than in usual care, a difference near statistical significance (P=0.06). Conclusions: Health coaching may improve the provision of quality chronic illness care for conditions such as COPD.
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.