Trial reportAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2026
Pulmonary specialist health coach consultation model: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03695276 (Pulmonary Specialist-Health Coach Consult), which is not on this 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.
Pulmonary Specialist-Health Coach Consult (PuSHCon) Model to Improve Access to Specialist Consultation and Receipt of Recommended Evidence-based Care for Vulnerable Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Asthma
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleSocioeconomically disadvantaged patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to overcome in health care settings with limited resources.
objectivesEvaluate the efficacy of a pulmonary-specialist-health coach consultation model (intervention) for patients with asthma and/or COPD, relative to usual care (control).
methodsRandomized-controlled trial of 16 weeks of intervention versus control for adult English- or Spanish-speaking, low-income patients. Intervention: a lay health coach gathered information from the patient and medical record for remote review by a pulmonary specialist, who provided general recommendations to the primary care clinician. The coach supported implementation of recommendations. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were receipt of guideline-based care and medications. Secondary outcomes were receipt of chronic lung disease education, breathing-related quality of life and symptoms, patient-rated quality of care, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Longitudinal models for count data were used to estimate Intervention: Control relative rates. Parallel models for continuous data estimated relative means. MAIN
resultsA total of 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; 95% CI: 1.37-1.90). They were not more likely to receive guideline-based medications in planned analysis using a pooled baseline rate, although post-hoc analysis using arm-specific baseline rates found significant improvement. Intervention patients received more chronic lung disease education and reported greater improvements in breathing-related quality of life, symptoms, and patient-reported quality of care.
conclusionsThis intervention offers a scalable approach to improve uptake of clinical guidelines in resource-limited primary care practices managing most asthma and COPD care. DESCRIPTOR NUMBER: 2.9 Racial, ethnic, or social disparities in lung disease and treatment. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT03695276.
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.