ArticleERJ open research2026
Patient, family member and healthcare professionals' experiences of physiotherapy airway clearance techniques during hospital admission: a scoping review.
Article in ERJ open research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Effective secretion management is crucial for hospitalised patients with retained secretions due to critical illness, chronic respiratory disease or infection. Airway clearance techniques (ACT), primarily physiotherapist-delivered and advocated in guidelines, support secretion removal. However, limited knowledge exists regarding the experiences of patients, family members and healthcare professionals involved in ACT. The aim of the present study was to explore the experiences of patients, family members and healthcare professionals of ACT in hospital settings. Methods: Following JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) recommendations and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist, searches were conducted in CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, from inception to 17 November 2025. Qualitative studies involving patients (≥16 years) receiving ACT, family members involved or healthcare professionals delivering ACT in the hospital setting were eligible. Screening and data charting were performed independently and in duplicate. Findings were synthesised descriptively and narratively. Results: Of 10 370 records identified, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported primary themes related to ACT, while relevant source text from the remaining five studies was extracted and integrated into the narrative synthesis. Populations included healthcare professionals (physiotherapists, nurses, intensivists, internal medicine specialists; n=293) and patients (n=80). No studies included family members. Settings were predominantly intensive care units (ICU) (n=9), with two studies spanning ICU and ward settings. Four overarching themes emerged: three shared by patients and healthcare professionals (Knowledge, resources, and skills; Decision-making process; Perceived effects and outcomes), and one unique to healthcare professionals (Organisational factors). Conclusions: Current evidence on experiences of ACT is dominated by physiotherapists and ICU settings, with no studies capturing family perspectives and limited patient or wider multidisciplinary input across broader hospital contexts. More inclusive, stakeholder-informed research is needed to fully understand ACT use, impact and burden in clinical practice.
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.