Cited by 53Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesCystic Fibrosis Research Advances

Written action plans in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increase appropriate treatment for acute exacerbations

Open access
WOOD‐BAKER, Richard, McGLONE, Shauna, VENN, Alison, WALTERS, E. Haydn·2006·Respirology

Abstract

Objective and background: COPD is a progressive disorder characterized by periodic exacerbations. While comprehensive self‐management programmes decrease health‐care resource utilization, the essential components are unclear. We performed a study of written action plans in the management of COPD. Methodology: A randomized, controlled, prospective parallel‐group study compared written action plans to usual practice. Subjects: Recruited from general practices, received an educational intervention with or without an action plan, which usually emphasized prompt treatment with antibiotics and corticosteroids. Subjects were followed up 3‐monthly for a year. Results: One hundred and thirty‐nine participants, mean FEV 1 45 ± 16% predicted, were recruited, 81% completing the study. Both groups had a decline in lung function and physical activity, but increase in quality of life over the study period. Exacerbations were common. The intervention group was significantly more likely to have treatment with antibiotics (χ 2 = 3.86; d.f. = 1; P = 0.05) or short course oral corticosteroids (χ 2 = 14.25; d.f. = 1; P < 0.001). No differences were found between the number of general practitioner consultations, attendances at emergency departments or hospitalizations. Conclusions: The use of a written action plan in COPD increased appropriate therapeutic interventions for exacerbations, but this effect was not associated with a decrease in the use of health‐care resources.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2006.00902.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WOOD‐BAKER, R., McGLONE, S., VENN, A., & WALTERS, E. H.
Affiliations
University of Tasmania (AU)
Venue
Respirology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-08-03
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
619-626
ISSN
  • 1323-7799 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1843
OpenAlex
W2040782437
Cited by
53
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Respirology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
  • eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline@ND (The University of Notre Dame) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cystic Fibrosis Research Advances
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, written action plans, acute exacerbation, self-management, antibiotic therapy, oral corticosteroids, healthcare resource utilization, quality of life, general practice
MeSH terms
Aged, Community Health Services, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motor Activity, Quality of Life, Self Care, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review