↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Supported self-management for patients with COPD who have recently been discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
Title
Supported self-management for patients with COPD who have recently been discharged from hospital: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, April 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s74162
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saimma Majothi, Kate Jolly, Nicola R Heneghan, Malcolm J Price, Richard D Riley, Alice M Turner, Susan E Bayliss, David J Moore, Sally J Singh, Peymané Adab, David A Fitzmaurice, Rachel E Jordan

Abstract

Although many hospitals promote self-management to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients post discharge from hospital, the clinical effectiveness of this is unknown. We undertook a systematic review of the evidence as part of a Health Technology Assessment review. A comprehensive search strategy with no language restrictions was conducted across relevant databases from inception to May 2012. Randomized controlled trials of patients with COPD, recently discharged from hospital after an acute exacerbation and comparing a self-management intervention with control, usual care or other intervention were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were undertaken by two reviewers independently. Of 13,559 citations, 836 full texts were reviewed with nine randomized controlled trials finally included in quantitative syntheses. Interventions were heterogeneous. Five trials assessed highly supported multi-component interventions and four trials were less supported with fewer contacts with health care professionals and mainly home-based interventions. Total sample size was 1,466 (range 33-464 per trial) with length of follow-up 2-12 months. Trials varied in quality; poor patient follow-up and poor reporting was common. No evidence of effect in favor of self-management support was observed for all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio =1.07; 95% confidence interval [0.74 to 1.55]; I (2)=0.0%, [n=5 trials]). No clear evidence of effect on all-cause hospital admissions was observed (hazard ratio 0.88 [0.61, 1.27] I (2)=66.0%). Improvements in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were seen in favor of self-management interventions (mean difference =3.84 [1.29 to 6.40]; I (2)=14.6%), although patient follow-up rates were low. There is insufficient evidence to support self-management interventions post-discharge. There is a need for good quality primary research to identify effective approaches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Other 10 6%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 50 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 17%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 55 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2018.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,053
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,308
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.