ArticleBMC nursing2025
Effects of a 10-week pulmonary rehabilitation program based on the 5A nursing model in patients with interstitial lung disease: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is essential for treating interstitial lung disease (ILD). The 5A nursing model enhances patients' health-promoting behaviors by improving their self-management skills. The aim of this study is to examine and analyze the effectiveness of the PR program based on the 5A nursing model concerning lung function, dyspnea, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, quality of life, and PR compliance in patients with ILD.
methods64 hospitalized ILD patients were enrolled in this quasi-experimental study. Patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (PR program based on the 5A nursing model) and a control group (conventional PR) on a ward-by-ward basis. The allocation was not concealed from the patients. A pre- and post-test design was used. An exercise training diary was utilized to evaluate PR compliance, data was gathered using the mMRC, HADS, PRAISE, and SGRQ, and lung function was assessed by a professional PR-trained nurse. SPSS 26.0 was used to analyze the data. For within/between-groups comparisons, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Fisher's exact test, t-test, χ²-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were employed.
resultsBaseline demographics were generally similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). After 10 weeks of intervention, the PR program based on the 5A nursing model group had more significant improvements in self-efficacy (P = 0.001), anxiety (P = 0.005), and depression (P = 0.018) compared to the control group, but there were no significant differences in dyspnea, lung function, or quality of life (P > 0.05). PR compliance was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (P = 0.028). Further within-group comparisons showed significant improvements in DLCO%pred (P = 0.003), dyspnea (P = 0.001), anxiety (P = 0.006), self-efficacy (P < 0.001), and quality of life (P < 0.001) at post-test in patients in the intervention group compared to pre-test.
conclusionThe PR program based on the 5A nursing model is an effective way to reduce anxiety, depression, and improve self-efficacy and PR compliance in patients with ILD.
trial registrationRetroactive registration is underway on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR).
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.