Title |
Self-management of health care behaviors for COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2016
|
DOI | 10.2147/copd.s90812 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kate Jolly, Saimma Majothi, Alice J Sitch, Nicola R Heneghan, Richard D Riley, David J Moore, Elizabeth J Bates, Alice M Turner, Susan E Bayliss, Malcolm J Price, Sally J Singh, Peymane Adab, David A Fitzmaurice, Rachel E Jordan |
Abstract |
This systematic review aimed to identify the most effective components of interventions to facilitate self-management of health care behaviors for patients with COPD. PROSPERO registration number CRD42011001588. We used standard review methods with a systematic search to May 2012 for randomized controlled trials of self-management interventions reporting hospital admissions or health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Mean differences (MD), hazard ratios, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Effects among different subgroups of interventions were explored including single/multiple components and multicomponent interventions with/without exercise. One hundred and seventy-three randomized controlled trials were identified. Self-management interventions had a minimal effect on hospital admission rates. Multicomponent interventions improved HRQoL (studies with follow-up >6 months St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (MD 2.40, 95% CI 0.75-4.04, I (2) 57.9). Exercise was an effective individual component (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at 3 months MD 4.87, 95% CI 3.96-5.79, I (2) 0%). While many self-management interventions increased HRQoL, little effect was seen on hospital admissions. More trials should report admissions and follow-up participants beyond the end of the intervention. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 114 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 17 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
Researcher | 11 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 5% |
Other | 21 | 18% |
Unknown | 36 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
Psychology | 4 | 3% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
Other | 14 | 12% |
Unknown | 42 | 37% |