Cited by 71Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchAsthma and respiratory diseasesNursing care and research

Do self-management interventions in COPD patients work and which patients benefit most? An individual patient data meta-analysis

Open access
Jonkman, Nini, Westland, Heleen, Trappenburg, Jaap CA, Groenwold, Rolf HH, Bischoff, Erik WMA, Bourbeau, Jean, Bucknall, Christine E, Coultas, David +15 more·2016·International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions are considered effective in patients with COPD, but trials have shown inconsistent results and it is unknown which patients benefit most. This study aimed to summarize the evidence on effectiveness of self-management interventions and identify subgroups of COPD patients who benefit most. METHODS: Randomized trials of self-management interventions between 1985 and 2013 were identified through a systematic literature search. Individual patient data of selected studies were requested from principal investigators and analyzed in an individual patient data meta-analysis using generalized mixed effects models. RESULTS: Fourteen trials representing 3,282 patients were included. Self-management interventions improved health-related quality of life at 12 months (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.16) and time to first respiratory-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.66-0.94) and all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.90), but had no effect on mortality. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed that interventions were more effective in males (6-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.006), patients with severe lung function (6-month all-cause hospitalization: interaction P=0.016), moderate self-efficacy (12-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.036), and high body mass index (6-month COPD-related hospitalization: interaction P=0.028 and 6-month mortality: interaction P=0.026). In none of these subgroups, a consistent effect was shown on all relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: Self-management interventions exert positive effects in patients with COPD on respiratory-related and all-cause hospitalizations and modest effects on 12-month health-related quality of life, supporting the implementation of self-management strategies in clinical practice. Benefits seem similar across the subgroups studied and limiting self-management interventions to specific patient subgroups cannot be recommended.

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 · 10.2147/copd.s107884

Cites

50 of 50 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?

  • The evidence for self-management intervention benefit for people with COPD comes from those who have more severe disease and symptom burden.

    “The evidence for self-management intervention benefit for people with COPD is from those who have more severe disease and symptom burden.13,14”

    From An observational cohort study of exercise and education for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease not meeting criteria for formal pulmonary rehabilitation programmes (2019) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Results (page not available) describe participants with a mean FEV1 of 47.7% predicted and report that 55.3% had high breathlessness scores, so the evidence includes people with substantial disease and symptoms. But the Conclusion (page not available) says benefits were similar across the subgroups studied; the paper does not establish that the evidence for benefit comes only from people with more severe disease and symptom burden. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jonkman, N., Westland, H., Trappenburg, J. C., Groenwold, R. H., Bischoff, E. W., Bourbeau, J., Bucknall, C. E., Coultas, D., Effing, T. W., Epton, M., Gallefoss, F., Garcia-Aymerich, J., Lloyd, S. M., Monninkhof, E. M., Nguyen, H. Q., van der Palen, J., Rice, K. L., Sedeno, M., Taylor, S. J., Troosters, T., Zwar, N. A., Hoes, A. W., & Schuurmans, M. J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • McGill University Health Centre (CA)
  • Glasgow Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Repatriation General Hospital (AU)
  • Christchurch Hospital (NZ)
  • Sørlandet Sykehus (NO)
  • Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (ES)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Jonkman, Nini
Venue
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Published
2016-08
Volume
Volume 11
Pages
2063-2074
ISSN
  • 1176-9106 (ISSN-L)
  • 1178-2005
OpenAlex
W2516146456
Cited by
71
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of COPD (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (PB-PG-0906-11172)
  • ZonMw (520001002)
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 › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, self-management interventions, health-related quality of life, hospitalization, mortality, subgroup analysis, self-efficacy, body mass index, lung function, sex differences
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Forced Expiratory Volume, Hospitalization, Humans, Lung, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Self Care, Time Factors, Odds Ratio, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Patient Selection, Evidence-Based Medicine, Recovery of Function, 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