ArticleImplementation science : IS2026
Implementation of co-designed strategies enhances referral to pulmonary rehabilitation for people with COPD in tertiary care: an interrupted time series study.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs) are a core component of care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet referral is low. The aims of this study were to; (i) engage with people with COPD receiving care at a tertiary hospital and HCPs involved in the management of people with COPD, to co-design and implement strategies that sought to improve referrals to PRPs; (ii) evaluate the effect of implementing co-designed strategies on the rate of referral to PRPs across three tertiary hospitals; and (iii) understand the sustainability of co-designed strategies by estimating relative costs and number of potentially prevented hospitalisations to achieve cost neutrality.
methodsThis uncontrolled quasi-experimental study was informed by the behaviour change wheel and co-design framework. It included three distinct periods: (i) pre-implementation, (ii) co-design and implementation, and (iii) post-implementation. During pre- and post-implementation, people with COPD were sequentially recruited from three tertiary hospitals. Medical records were tracked to determine PRP referral. During the co-design and implementation period, four people with COPD and six HCPs developed and implemented strategies addressing known barriers to PRP referral. Referral rates in pre- and post-implementation periods were compared using segmented Poisson regression. Sustainability was estimated by modelling the number of hospitalisations that would need to be avoided annually to offset implementation costs. Program uptake, completion, and clinical outcomes were not assessed.
resultsCo-designed strategies included PRP promotional products; off-loading parking expenses; deploying 'case finders' across the three tertiary hospitals whose primary role was to find people with COPD appropriate for a PRP and support them to engage; and visual prompts for HCPs to refer. Data were available on 590 people with COPD (age 69 ± 11 years, FEV
conclusionsCo-designed strategies that addressed known barriers to people with COPD being referred to a PRP produced a two-fold increase in rate of referrals. Given the evidence that PRPs reduce healthcare utilisation, long-term funding of these strategies may indicate cost neutrality.
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.