ArticleJournal of global health2026
Prevalence and impacts of breathlessness in South Africa: an exploratory, cross-sectional population study.
Article in Journal of global health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic breathlessness contributes substantially to the global health burden and healthcare use, yet data on its prevalence and impacts in lower-resource settings remain limited. We investigated the prevalence, self-reported underlying conditions, and impacts of breathlessness at the population level in South Africa. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in English among community-dwelling adults aged 18 years or older. The sample was stratified by age, sex, and rurality to reflect the 2022 National Census. Self-reported data included sociodemographic characteristics; breathlessness, assessed using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) breathlessness scale; employment; activities of daily living, assessed using an item from the London Chest Activities of Daily Living; quality of life, assessed using the EQ-5D-5L and EQ visual analogue scale; and disability, assessed using the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. We analysed the weighted dataset using descriptive statistics. Results: We included 2,828 respondents with a mean age of 37.1 years (standard deviation = 12.4), of whom 52.3% were female. Clinically important breathlessness (mMRC ≥ 2) was reported by 189 respondents (6.7%), with a median duration of 3.1 years (interquartile range = 1.5-5.4). The most commonly reported attributions were lung conditions other than tuberculosis (23.8%), 'other' factors (16.4%), and anaemia (11.6%). Clinically important breathlessness was associated with poorer perceived health, lower quality of life, and higher total disability scores than mild (mMRC 1) or no breathlessness (mMRC 0). Mobility and participation were the most affected disability domains. Among respondents with an mMRC≥2, 64 (33.8%) reported an impact on employment, of whom 49 (76.6%) had ceased full-time work, while 171 (90.3%) respondents reported an impact on daily activities. Conclusions: We estimate that more than four million people in South Africa live with clinically important breathlessness. The symptom is associated with poorer quality of life, greater disability, reduced employment, and impaired function. The life-changing effects of this debilitating symptom among community-dwelling adults should be investigated in longitudinal studies to help inform clinical policy and practice.
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.