ArticleERJ open research2025
Specific content for education and self-management programmes for people with pulmonary fibrosis: a co-creation, multiphase, mixed-method study.
Article in ERJ open research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxygen therapy in interstitial lung disease - navigating benefit and burden.Current opinion in pulmonary medicine · 2026Review
- Patient education and self-management in interstitial lung disease: why and what, now how?ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Palliative Care for Patients with Severe Chronic Lung Diseases: A Swiss Position Paper.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to identify and establish comprehensive and specific patient education and self-management (PESM) content created by people with pulmonary fibrosis (PF) and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods: We employed a sequential, multiphase mixed-method approach (qualitative → quantitative → qualitative) incorporating co-creation elements including interviews with people with PF and HCPs, a two-round Delphi study with HCPs and subsequent interviews with people with PF to validate the developed content. Results: In phase 1, we interviewed 11 people with PF and six healthcare experts in PF. Based on these interviews, we derived 319 items which we distributed in Delphi surveys to 260 HCPs (phase 2). 96 HCPs participated in both Delphi rounds and agreed on 150 out of finally 343 (24 additionally created) items (44%) in seven topics: Staying well with PF; Keeping fit and strong with PF; Managing breathlessness; Managing cough; Managing fatigue; Managing symptoms of anxiety, depression and panic; Using oxygen therapy. In phase 3, six people with PF validated the developed content of phase 2. Conclusion: We identified specific, clinically relevant and meaningful PESM content for PF through a co-creation approach with people with PF and HCPs. The findings not only inform current and future PESM programmes, patients and clinicians, but also highlight specific areas for future research.
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.