Cited by 137Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Comprehensive self management and routine monitoring in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in general practice: randomised controlled trial

Open access
Bischoff, E. W. M. A., Akkermans, R., Bourbeau, J., van Weel, C., Vercoulen, J. H., Schermer, T. R. J.·2012·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long term effects of two different modes of disease management (comprehensive self management and routine monitoring) on quality of life (primary objective), frequency and patients' management of exacerbations, and self efficacy (secondary objectives) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in general practice. DESIGN: 24 month, multicentre, investigator blinded, three arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 15 general practices in the eastern part of the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry and treated in general practice. Patients with very severe COPD or treated by a respiratory physician were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: A comprehensive self management programme as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of four tailored sessions with ongoing telephone support by a practice nurse; routine monitoring as an adjunct to usual care, consisting of 2-4 structured consultations a year with a practice nurse; or usual care alone (contacts with the general practitioner at the patients' own initiative). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in COPD specific quality of life at 24 months as measured with the chronic respiratory questionnaire total score. Secondary outcomes were chronic respiratory questionnaire domain scores, frequency and patients' management of exacerbations measured with the Nijmegen telephonic exacerbation assessment system, and self efficacy measured with the COPD self-efficacy scale. RESULTS: 165 patients were allocated to self management (n=55), routine monitoring (n=55), or usual care alone (n=55). At 24 months, adjusted treatment differences between the three groups in mean chronic respiratory questionnaire total score were not significant. Secondary outcomes did not differ, except for exacerbation management. Compared with usual care, more exacerbations in the self management group were managed with bronchodilators (odds ratio 2.81, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 6.82) and with prednisolone, antibiotics, or both (3.98, 1.10 to 15.58). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive self management or routine monitoring did not show long term benefits in terms of quality of life or self efficacy over usual care alone in COPD patients in general practice. Patients in the self management group seemed to be more capable of appropriately managing exacerbations than did those in the usual care group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials NCT00128765.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.e7642

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [30]Schermer T, Chavannes N, Dekhuijzen R, Wouters E, Muris J, Akkermans R, et al. Fluticasone and N-acetylcysteine in primary care patients with COPD or chronic bronchitis. Respir Med 2009; 103: 542-51. 19138505

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bischoff, E. W. M. A., Akkermans, R., Bourbeau, J., van Weel, C., Vercoulen, J. H., & Schermer, T. R. J.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Bischoff, E. W. M. A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-11-28
Volume
345
Issue
nov28 1
Pages
e7642-e7642
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1770386523
Cited by
137
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 9
FWCI
10.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • European Respiratory Journal
Funders
ZonMw
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, self-management, routine monitoring, exacerbation management, quality of life, self-efficacy, telephone support, practice nurses, general practice, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, bronchodilators, prednisolone
MeSH terms
Aged, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Care, Spirometry, Disease Management, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, General Practice

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