ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2026
Non-Pharmacological Breathlessness Action Plans for People with COPD and Their Support People: A Scoping Review and Survey of Current Practice.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2026. 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Breathlessness action plans guide people to self-manage acute-on-chronic breathlessness episodes using non-pharmacological strategies to help breathing and overcome panic. We aimed to identify plans available for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and describe their development, content, quality, use, and evidence for benefit. Methods: Two descriptive methodologies were used, overseen by a team of people with COPD and carers/support persons, clinicians and researchers: 1) A scoping review (academic databases, internet) identified English-language plans and research; 2) An online survey of plan-users and clinicians about their plan-related experience and perceived benefits. Each plan underwent appraisal by a person with COPD/support person and clinician/researcher using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), content analysis and reading grade assessment. Results: Of 69 plans identified, 88% (n=61/69) included breathing techniques, 78% (n=54/69) positioning, 65% (n=45/69) airflow, 36% (n=25/69) relaxation/distraction, 30% (n=21/69) stopping/slowing, 22% (n=15/69) remaining calm, 13% (n=13/69) reassurance, 7% (n=5/69) support from others and 4% (n=3/69) loosening clothing. The 48 plans that could be PEMAT-analysed scored an average of 64% for understandability and 68% for actionability. Their median reading grade was 8.2 (inter-quartile range 2.2). We identified efficacy support from only one pre/post study and feasibility/acceptability from qualitative data in two feasibility trials, each focusing on a different plan. In the survey, 67% (n=31/46) of plan-users self-reported avoiding calling an ambulance over the past year by using their plan. 93% (n=94/101) of clinicians perceived patient benefit in the form of increased confidence/reduced anxiety, 60% (n=61/101) reduced frequency of episodes, 53% (54/101) reduced need for ambulance/emergency department, and 41% (41/101) increased activities of daily living, while 4% (4/101) were unsure of any benefit. Discussion: Despite multiple plans being available, few studies have assessed acceptability or efficacy. Further research is needed to evaluate net effects on self-management, breathlessness-related outcomes and healthcare usage.
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.