Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41253412›Full record

ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT): under-recognition of breathlessness in clinical care-a national survey.

Slavica Kochovska, Sungwon Chang, Diana Ferreira, Vanessa Brunelli, Tim Luckett, Lucy Morgan, Jessica Macdonald, Thomas Altree, Miriam J Johnson, Magnus Ekström and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Slavica KochovskaFlinders University College of Medicine and Public Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia slavica.kochovska@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3531-0389
Sungwon ChangUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0723-3192
Diana FerreiraFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Vanessa BrunelliFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-2254
Tim LuckettUniversity of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6121-5409
Lucy MorganDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6389-1953
Jessica MacdonaldFaculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas AltreeAdelaide Institute for Sleep Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1979-8975
Miriam J JohnsonWolfson Palliative Care Research centre, Hull York Medical School, The University of Hull, Hull, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6204-9158
Magnus EkströmFaculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Respiratory Medicine, Allergology and Palliative Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7227-5113
David CurrowFlinders University College of Medicine and Public Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-1250

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe recognition of breathlessness in clinical practice appears suboptimal, despite its prevalence and impact. This study aimed to explore the content of clinical conversations about breathlessness and patients' level of self-reported openness when discussing their breathlessness.

methodsA cross-sectional, online survey of Australian adults (≥18 years) stratified to the 2016 National Census for age, sex, state/territory of residence and rurality. Assessments based on self-report included

resultsOf 4245 respondents with mMRC ≥1 2311 (54%) reported discussing breathlessness with their clinician. The majority were patient-initiated conversations (94%; n=2179) where the proportion discussing >1 topic was higher with each mMRC level (34% mMRC1; 40% mMRC2; 50% mMRC3-4) in contrast with clinician-initiated conversations (32% mMRC1; 5% mMRC2; 22% mMRC3-4).Patient-initiated conversations prioritised discussing the topics 'how the person feels' (mMRC1) and 'breathlessness' impacts' (mMRC2-4); clinician-initiated consultations prioritised 'breathlessness' impacts' (mMRC1-2) and 'how the person feels' and 'doubts/fears' (mMRC3-4).Compared with clinician-initiated conversations, patient-initiated ones had a higher proportion of respondents reporting being

conclusionsMany patients are willing to discuss multiple aspects of their breathlessness but may not disclose the full extent of the symptom's presence or impacts.

Indexed as

CommunicationDyspneaPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultPerception of Asthma/BreathlessnessSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID41253412
PMCPMC12636879

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.