Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study

Amy C. Barradell, Linzy Houchen-Wolloff, Noelle Robertson, Hilary L. Bekker, Sally J. Singh
ERJ Open Research 2022 8: 00645-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00645-2021
Amy C. Barradell
1Dept of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
2Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre-Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
3National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration (East Midlands), College of Medicine, Biological Sciences and Psychology, Leicester General Hospital, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linzy Houchen-Wolloff
1Dept of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
2Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre-Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Noelle Robertson
4Dept of Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hilary L. Bekker
5Leeds Unit of Complex Intervention Development, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
6Research Centre for Patient Involvement, Central Denmark Region and Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally J. Singh
1Dept of Respiratory Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
2Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science, Leicester Biomedical Research Centre-Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: sally.singh@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • “A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study”. Amy C. Barradell, Linzy Houchen-Wolloff, Noelle Robertson, Hilary L. Bekker and Sally J. Singh. ERJ Open Res 2022; 8: 00645-2021 - July 01, 2022

Abstract

Background Despite the variety of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes for patients living with COPD, uptake remains low. To improve this, it is recommended that health professionals engage patients in informed decisions about pulmonary rehabilitation. Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates informed and value-based decision-making between patients and health professionals. This protocol describes the development and evaluation of a complex SDM intervention for patients living with COPD, who are referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and their pulmonary rehabilitation health professional.

Methods and analysis We are developing a complex SDM intervention involving a patient decision aid (PtDA) and a decision coaching workshop. Prior to patient recruitment, pulmonary rehabilitation health professionals will attend the workshop. Upon referral to pulmonary rehabilitation, patients will receive the PtDA to support their decision-making prior to and during their pulmonary rehabilitation assessment with a health professional. The intervention will be evaluated in a one-arm exploratory study to investigate its feasibility and acceptability for patients and health professionals, with an integrated fidelity assessment. The primary outcome is recruitment feasibility, data collection feasibility and intervention fidelity. Secondary outcomes include routine pulmonary rehabilitation data, decisional conflict, patient activation, intervention attendance/attrition and patient and pulmonary rehabilitation health professional experience of the intervention. Quantitative outcomes will be evaluated using the most appropriate statistical test, dependent on the sample distribution. Qualitative outcomes will be evaluated using reflexive thematic analysis. Fidelity will be assessed using the Observer OPTION 5 scale.

Conclusion This intervention will provide structure for an informed and values-based decision-making consultation between a patient with COPD and a pulmonary rehabilitation health professional with the potential for optimising pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Abstract

This protocol describes the development and evaluation of a pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention, including a patient decision aid and decision coaching workshop, for patients living with COPD, and their health professional https://bit.ly/3gkTZM8

Introduction

People living with COPD experience chronic respiratory symptoms including breathlessness, cough, wheeze and excess sputum. These are punctuated by periods of acute exacerbation whereby respiratory symptoms worsen and they may require medication or hospitalisation [1].

To manage the symptoms of COPD holistically, individuals are invited to attend pulmonary rehabilitation. Pulmonary rehabilitation is a complex intervention of personalised and progressive exercise training alongside disease management education. The programme is evidence-based and known to improve breathlessness, exercise capacity, psychological wellbeing and self-efficacy [2]. It seeks to desensitise people to the experience of breathlessness, thereby supporting the implementation of positive self-management skills [3].

Traditionally, pulmonary rehabilitation is delivered in a group setting with direct supervision from health professionals; however, to support individual needs and enhance uptake, a variety of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation models have been developed, evaluated and implemented into routine patient care, for example, a standardised COPD self-management manual (SPACE for COPD) which includes telephone support from health professionals [4], and a comparable programme delivered online [5]. The four-stage manual, co-produced by patients and health professionals [6], has shown to improve individuals’ COPD symptoms and exercise tolerance above usual care, and when compared to traditional pulmonary rehabilitation has proved noninferior for improvements in quality of life [7, 8]. Similarly, the online programme has shown potential for increasing disease knowledge and pulmonary rehabilitation completion for a subset of digitally literate patients [9].

While the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has enhanced the need and appetite for home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, uptake to these programmes remains low. In 2019, referral, uptake and completion rates were below target [10]. The commonly cited barriers to pulmonary rehabilitation engagement include organisational constraints (e.g. the location of pulmonary rehabilitation venues, session times [11]), people's beliefs (e.g. low self-worth, anticipated negative interactions with health professionals [12]) and people's socioeconomic status (e.g. cost of attending pulmonary rehabilitation, digital literacy [13]). It appears that people's perceptions of COPD and self-management are key to their help-seeking behaviour and engagement in recommended treatments (e.g. pulmonary rehabilitation [14]). Therefore, it is suggested that health professionals should seek to engage people in informed decisions about their enrolment into pulmonary rehabilitation [11, 15].

A process that facilitates individuals’ engagement in healthcare decisions is shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves individuals and health professionals working together to make a decision. It is different from usual care communication as it requires a discussion to share individuals’ and health professionals’ perspectives on the health problem, healthcare options, preferences, value of one option over another and agreement and planning on which option is best for the individual. It therefore enables people to make an informed and values-based choice [16].

To support SDM between health professionals and individuals, resources called “patient decision aids” (PtDAs) are often utilised in a healthcare consultation. PtDAs provide evidence-based information about a medical condition and the available healthcare options (e.g. the risks and benefits to each). They draw on evidence from decision science on how and what information to present to help reduce individuals’ cognitive load and information bias [17]. The adoption of PtDA across multiple healthcare settings has increased the frequency of SDM and patient-centred decisions, particularly by increasing individuals’ knowledge, enhancing awareness of risk, reducing any feelings of internal conflict and reducing feelings of passivity [18–23].

While PtDA have shown to support people with COPD to make decisions about mechanical ventilation [24, 25], there are currently no PtDAs to support pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making. These studies observed improvements in individuals’ knowledge of treatment options, reduced decisional conflict and enabled individuals to make value-based decisions. However, the authors acknowledged the need for decision coaching skills in the integration of these resources in practice. The provision of training to facilitate health professionals’ decision coaching in addition to a PtDA is believed to be a robust SDM intervention [26].

To support people's decision-making for pulmonary rehabilitation, we are developing a PtDA which will be provided to individuals with COPD upon their referral to pulmonary rehabilitation. This is to be utilised prior to and during a SDM consultation with a pulmonary rehabilitation health professional who is trained in decision coaching. We hypothesise that this intervention will be feasible and acceptable for people living with COPD and pulmonary rehabilitation health professionals.

This protocol describes the development and feasibility evaluation of the first pulmonary rehabilitation PtDA for patients living with COPD. It follows the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Study (SPIRIT) guidance [27] (supplementary material).

Objectives

The primary objective is to develop a complex PtDA intervention facilitating pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making with the aim to evaluate its feasibility and acceptability to patients and health professionals.

Development has been informed by the PtDA development logic model [28], the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) [29], the Ottawa Decision Support Framework [30] and guidance on embedding complex interventions into health settings [31]. Figure 1 illustrates the adapted PtDA logic model utilised.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

The adapted patient decision aid (PtDA) logic model utilised in the protocol.

The specific objectives are as follows.

  1. To conduct a needs assessment to explore the decisional needs of patients considering a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation. This includes exploratory qualitative interviews with patients and health professionals and a computerised Implicit Association Test with health professionals [32] (design steps 1 and 2).

  2. To conduct a systematic review to determine the effective format and distribution of SDM interventions within the target population (design step 3).

  3. To collate systematic evidence for the pulmonary rehabilitation programme options and usual COPD care (design step 4).

  4. To develop the prototype PtDA (informed by design steps 1–4).

  5. To conduct alpha-testing of the prototype with patients, carers and health professionals to explore its usability, comprehensibility and acceptability (alpha-testing 1 and 2) and to redraft the prototype, as needed.

  6. To conduct a feasibility study to explore:

    • the intervention's feasibility (i.e. recruitment capability, feasibility of data collection processes and outcome measures, acceptability and suitability of intervention and research procedures, evaluation of resources and ability to manage and implement the research and intervention, preliminary evaluation of intervention effect) (beta-testing 1 and 2);

    • the intervention's acceptability (i.e. patients’ and health professionals’ satisfaction, intention to continue use, perceived appropriateness and fit with organisational culture) of the SDM intervention (beta-testing 1 and 2).

Study design

This is a one-arm exploratory study to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a pulmonary rehabilitation SDM intervention for patients living with COPD and pulmonary rehabilitation health professionals, with an integrated fidelity assessment.

The study design and implementation is co-produced with a dedicated steering group consisting of patients, carers, health professionals, and pulmonary rehabilitation and SDM experts.

Methods

Development and evaluation of a pulmonary rehabilitation SDM intervention

Design steps 1 and 2a: qualitative interviews

Qualitative research methods will be utilised to capture a rich and nuanced understanding of the factors influencing patients’ decision-making for pulmonary rehabilitation pertinent to our service (i.e. the barriers, facilitators and potential improvements which can support patients’ decision-making). Semi-structured, one-to-one interviews with patients and health professionals will be conducted and analysed in accordance with the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique protocol [33]. These steps will provide information on the conscious and verbalised factors influencing patients’ pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Design step 2b: Implicit Association Test

An adapted, computerised version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) [32] will be utilised to measure the presence of unconscious bias among health professionals. It will be delivered remotely to participants using the PsyToolkit online platform (www.psytoolkit.org/c/3.3.2/survey?s=ZhpDN) [34, 35].

The IAT will ask participants to categorise words presented on the screen as quickly as possible. They will categorise COPD patient health behaviours (e.g. smoking or exercising) with an attribute (e.g. pleasant or unpleasant) in a series of block trials, interspersed with training blocks so participants can practice the categorisation process. For example, in block one, participants will be asked to categorise words associated with smoking with pleasant words and words associated with exercising with unpleasant words. In block two, the word associations are then reversed. After each answer a happy or sad face appears, to feed-back whether the answer was correct or not. The block order is randomly assigned to ensure training effects are minimised. The test uses participants’ reaction times as a measure of the strength of association between the concepts; the shorter the time to categorise the words, the stronger the association. Concepts which are implicitly associated should be easier and quicker to categorise.

Design step 3: systematic review

A systematic review will be conducted to collate data on how a PtDA should be developed, what it should include, how it should look, how it should be delivered and how it should be evaluated. The protocol for this systematic review is reported elsewhere (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020169897).

Design step 4: synthesis of evidence

The outcome data to insert onto the PtDA will be decided by the dedicated steering group. A review and synthesis of evidence will be conducted for centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation with health professional, home-based pulmonary rehabilitation with telephone support (e.g. SPACE for COPD), home-based pulmonary rehabilitation with online support (online SPACE for COPD) and routine COPD care.

Alpha testing 1: patient/carer user testing

Informed by the design phases, a prototype PtDA will be created. This will be tested and reviewed by a local patient and public involvement group, comprised of patients and carers. Specific questions regarding its comprehensibility (e.g. How do they understand the content, flow and interactive prompts? Could we make it easier to understand?) and usability (e.g. How do they interact with the content, flow and interactive prompts? Could we make it easier to use?) will be posed. The observations will be collated and shared with the steering committee to discuss and inform amendments.

Alpha testing 2: health professional/expert user testing

The prototype PtDA will be individually tested by all members of the dedicated steering group. In addition, it will be tested and reviewed by independent pulmonary rehabilitation specialists. Specific questions will be posed regarding it acceptability (e.g. How do they perceive the content, flow and interactive prompts? What would make it more acceptable?) and usability (e.g. How do they interact with the content, flow and interactive prompts? Could we make it easier for them to use?). The observations will be compared with those from alpha testing 1 and shared with the steering committee to further discuss and inform amends.

Beta testing 1 and 2: feasibility study

The feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed PtDA will be evaluated in a one-arm exploratory study. The study will capture quantitative, qualitative and process data to inform the need for a full-scale randomised controlled trial.

Participants, interventions and outcomes

Setting

The recruitment site is a university hospital with a dedicated pulmonary rehabilitation and research service based in Leicestershire, UK.

Eligibility criteria

Eligible patient participants will be those with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD (Global Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria) [1] and eligible for a referral to pulmonary rehabilitation. Those with a primary diagnosis of another respiratory condition will be excluded.

The health professional participant eligibility criteria for design step 2a and 2b will be those who refer patients living with COPD to pulmonary rehabilitation. For the exploratory qualitative interviews (design 2a), eligible health professionals will be those who refer to pulmonary rehabilitation services within Leicestershire. For the IAT (design 2b), eligible health professionals are those who refer to services across the UK. The health professional participant eligibility criteria for the feasibility study (beta testing 2) are those directly involved in the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation at the Leicestershire service. A full list of inclusion and exclusion criteria is provided in tables 1–4.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Eligibility criteria for patient participants

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Eligibility criteria for health professionals recruited to exploratory qualitative interviews (design step 2a)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Eligibility criteria for health professionals recruited to the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (design step 2b)

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 4

Eligibility criteria for health professional participants recruited to beta testing 2

Due to the low interventional load and safety of the intervention, the withdrawal of participants is not anticipated; however, participants will be informed of their right to withdraw during consent procedures.

Intervention

Training health professionals for decision coaching

The SDM intervention is delivered on a one-to-one basis with pulmonary rehabilitation specialists, who are specifically trained to deliver SDM. They will be termed “SDM facilitators”.

The training consists of a bespoke 2-h educational workshop specifically relevant to SDM in pulmonary rehabilitation. The workshop involves developing individuals’ understanding, appetite and acceptance of SDM using a combination of lecture and practical methods (e.g. role play with feedback). The curriculum is informed by Stacey et al.’s [18] decision coaching framework, and guidance on teaching SDM and communication skills to health professionals [36–39]. These recommended the use of practical teaching methods with feedback, the importance of distinguishing between patient-centred care and SDM, providing relevant scenarios for trainees to reflect upon, introducing how to use a PtDA and a post-knowledge test.

The objective of the workshop is to provide knowledge and skills practice to enable pulmonary rehabilitation specialists to coach patients’ pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making, using a PtDA. The learning outcomes are as follows:

  • 1) To understand the PReSent study and the role of the SDM facilitator.

  • 2) To understand how people make informed decisions.

  • 3) To understand the uniqueness of SDM and how to deliver it using skills and tools.

  • 4) To understand the three-talk model of SDM.

  • 5) To be able to structure a SDM pulmonary rehabilitation assessment appointment using a PtDA.

  • 6) To practice a pulmonary rehabilitation SDM consultation using a PtDA and receive feedback to consolidate knowledge and skills.

  • 7) To consolidate knowledge in a quiz.

The session plan is provided in table 5. Upon completion of the training, attendees are provided with a certificate.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 5

Decision coaching workshop session plan

Patient decision aid

The PtDA was developed using Coulter et al.’s [28] systematic development process for PtDAs, Ottawa's Patient Decision Aid Development eTraining (https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/eTraining/), the IPDAS checklist [29] and guidance on the development of complex interventions in healthcare [31]. It was co-produced with a dedicated steering group which included patients, pulmonary rehabilitation specialists and experts in pulmonary rehabilitation and SDM.

The PtDA is an informational booklet which explicitly describes the decision posed to the individual, provides a description of COPD, outlines the available options to for patients (i.e. centre-based pulmonary rehabilitation with health professionals, home-based pulmonary rehabilitation with telephone support from health professionals, home-based pulmonary rehabilitation with online support from health professionals, routine COPD care), and provides the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of each option with numerical probabilities. Throughout the PtDA, interactive sections are included to engage patients with the content, guide them through the decision-making process, guide them through communication with a health professional and those close to them (e.g. relative, carer) and encourage them to attribute personal meaning and preferences to each option, thus supporting informed and value-based decision-making.

The PtDA is provided to patients following their referral to pulmonary rehabilitation. Participants will be advised how to use it and asked to bring it with them when they attend their routine pulmonary rehabilitation assessment appointment. In addition to their routine appointment, patients will engage in a SDM consultation with a SDM facilitator. This will include a collaborative review of the PtDA to enable a choice to be made about which programme the participant would like to enrol onto. Participants will then begin their chosen pulmonary rehabilitation programme.

With permission from each patient, the SDM consultation will be digitally recorded on an encrypted voice recorder. The lead author and a co-author will independently analyse each recording for adherence to SDM principles using the Observer OPTION 5 scale [40].

Since this is a feasibility study, there are no alternative interventions. All patient participants will receive the PtDA and all health professional participants will receive the decision coaching training.

Outcomes

Design steps 1 and 2a: qualitative interviews

The primary outcome will be a synthesis of the barriers, facilitators and possible improvements which can be made to support patients’ pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Design step 2b: Implicit Association Test

The primary outcome will be response latency, which is an indication of the presence or absence of implicit bias.

Design step 4: synthesis of evidence

The primary outcome will be the finalised dataset to be entered onto the PtDA.

Alpha testing 1: patient/carer user testing

The primary outcomes will be the comprehensibility and usability of the PtDA.

Alpha testing 2: health professional user testing

The primary outcome will be the acceptability and usability of the PtDA.

Beta testing 1 and 2: feasibility study

The primary outcome measures will be feasibility of recruitment (i.e. recruitment to time and target), feasibility of data collection/outcome measures (i.e. data completeness), and intervention fidelity.

The secondary outcome measures will be a change in decisional conflict (using the Decisional Conflict Scale [41]), patient activation (using the Patient Activation Measure [42]), SDM intervention attendance and attrition, patient attitudes/experience of receiving the SDM intervention and SDM facilitator attitudes/experience of delivering the SDM intervention. In addition, the following routine pulmonary rehabilitation outcome measures will be collected: uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation (including programme selection and any crossover from one programme to another), COPD Assessment Test [43], Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire [44], Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [45], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [46], COPD Patient-Reported Experience Measure 9 [47], Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale [48], incremental shuttle walk test [49] and endurance shuttle walk test [50].

All outcome measures will be collected at baseline and post-pulmonary rehabilitation completion, apart from those relevant only to post-intervention/pulmonary rehabilitation completion (e.g. feasibility measures, intervention fidelity, SDM intervention attendance and attrition, patient attitudes/experience of receiving the SDM intervention, SDM facilitator attitudes/experience of delivering the SDM intervention, uptake and completion of pulmonary rehabilitation).

Recruitment and study procedures

The following section contains information relevant only to the steps involving participant recruitment (design steps 1, 2a and 2b; beta testing 1 and 2). All participants will provide written informed consent via online, telephone or face-to-face methods prior to study activities. Participants in the beta testing phase will have the option to consent to additional study procedures which will be documented on the consent form (e.g. interviews/focus groups). Data will be collected on adverse and serious adverse events in line with the ethics committee's and study sponsor's requirements. The confidentiality of participant data will abide by the Data Protection Act (2018).

Design steps 1 and 2a: qualitative interviews

Participants will be recruited using the proportionate allocation method of stratified sampling to ensure participants are representative of the Leicestershire pulmonary rehabilitation service. For patients, our sampling will consider referral setting (e.g. inpatient, outpatient, general practice) and residence (e.g. inner-city, urban). For health professionals, our sampling will consider referral setting (e.g. primary care, secondary care) and site location (e.g. inner-city, urban). Participants will be approached using an invitation letter. For those who express interest, the researcher will contact them to arrange a suitable date and time for the interview. The researcher will obtain informed consent and then undertake a semi-structured interview either in person or via telephone (as per participants’ preference). Each interview will be digitally recorded on an encrypted voice recorder. The audio recordings will be transferred securely to a third-party transcription service. The transcripts will be returned and securely stored on the sponsor's encrypted server for analysis. This data will only be accessible to delegated researchers.

Design step 2b: Implicit Association Test

Health professional participants will be approached using social media adverts and dissemination via professional groups. Participants who express interest will be invited to conduct an online screening assessment, and if eligible, complete an electronic consent form prior to completion of the computerised IAT. All study procedures will be completed in one ∼30-min online session. Data will be downloaded from the PsyToolkit test portal [34, 35] and stored on the sponsor's encrypted server for analysis.

Beta testing 1 and 2: feasibility study

An outline of the research visits for all participants (SDM facilitators and patients) recruited to the feasibility study is outlined in table 6.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 6

Research visits for all participants recruited to the feasibility study

Patient participants will be screened by the pulmonary rehabilitation team to assess their eligibility. Those eligible will be sent an invitation letter detailing the study procedures. For those who express interest, the researcher will invite them to attend a screening and consent visit. The researcher will obtain informed consent and then administer baseline outcome measures through supervised, self-report questionnaires. The participants will be provided with a PtDA. Participants will then attend their routine pulmonary rehabilitation assessment appointment, in which a SDM consultation will occur. With patient participants’ permission, the session will be digitally recorded on an encrypted voice recorder and transferred to the sponsor's secure server for analysis.

Following completion or drop-out of pulmonary rehabilitation, participants will repeat the supervised, self-report outcome measures and will be invited to attend an optional focus group to discuss their experiences of the study. Supervised, self-report data will be collected on paper questionnaires and single entered onto a secure database on the sponsor's server. A 10% accuracy check will be conducted to ensure validity of the data. The focus groups will be digitally recorded on an encrypted voice recorder. The audio recordings will be securely sent to a third-party transcription service and returned and stored on the sponsor's secure server for analysis. This will only be accessible to delegated researchers.

Health professionals who work within the pulmonary rehabilitation department at the research site will be approached and invited to undertake the decision coaching training. A detailed information sheet will be provided to them and those who express interest will be contacted to arrange an appropriate date and time to consent to the study. The researcher will obtain informed consent and then provide the decision coaching workshop. Following completion, health professionals will receive a certificate to recognise their new skills. They will then begin to deliver the SDM intervention individually with patient participants consented to the study.

Sample size

Design steps 1 and 2a: qualitative interviews

A sample size of 15 participants (i.e. six to seven patients and eight to nine health professionals) was selected, congruent with expert opinion on a minimum data set for qualitative research [52–54]. However, a pragmatic approach will be taken, meaning if new data and concepts are still emerging once the target sample size is met, data collection will continue until data saturation is met. A reflexive log [55] will be maintained prior to and throughout data collection to ensure data transparency.

Design step 2b: Implicit Association Test

This sample size calculation was determined using the online platform Raosoft (www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html), which is suitable for the calculation of sample sizes for surveys. The calculation is based on the following assumptions: the margin of error accepted (5%), the confidence level needed (95%), the population size (number of staff who actively refer to University Hospitals of Leicester pulmonary rehabilitation services, n=128), the response distribution (50%). The calculated sample size is 97 participants.

Beta testing 1 and 2: feasibility study

A total of 10 SDM facilitators will be recruited from the pulmonary rehabilitation team to deliver the SDM intervention and 30 patient participants will be recruited to engage in the intervention. The chosen sample size is sufficient for the assessment of feasibility [51] and will enable us to estimate a standard deviation, using ⩾80% upper one-sided confidence limit for our primary outcomes and to calculate the sample size needed for a full scale randomised controlled trial (should the results indicate this is warranted).

At the end of the study, ∼15 participants (10 patients, five SDM facilitators) will engage in a focus group (one or two groups) or an interview (up to five interviews). As described earlier, the proposed sample size for the qualitative data collection is congruent with expert opinion [52–54], a pragmatic approach will be utilised to meet data saturation, and a reflexive log will provide data transparency [55].

Data analysis

All statistical analysis will be performed using IBM SPSS (version 26) software. Qualitative analysis will be performed using QSR International NVivo (version 12) software.

Design steps 1 and 2a: qualitative interviews

The qualitative interview data will be analysed using an inductive approach alongside the enhanced critical incident technique (ECIT) [33]. This method identifies items, known as critical incidents, which make a significant positive (helping), negative (hindering) or future recommendation (wish-list) contribution to the topic of interest. For example, and as previously highlighted, patients often cite a lack of transport options as a hindrance to their acceptance of pulmonary rehabilitation. Here the hindering critical incident would be “a lack of transport options”.

The first author will extract the helping, hindering and wish-list critical incidents from the first transcript and group them thematically into categories. The remaining transcripts will be analysed and critical incidents will be placed into existing categories, or if incongruent, new categories will be developed. The analysis will continue iteratively until categories became specific and robust. The ECIT's credibility checks will be closely adhered to. These include independent analysis by two additional researchers, the verification of categories and quotes with participants, and the verification and saturation of categories with academic experts.

Design step 2b: Implicit Association Test

Analyses will be by the per-protocol method (i.e. participant data will be analysed if an outcome is available). The primary outcome is the response latency of the IAT. The strength of the association between concepts will be measured by the standardised mean difference score of the congruent word pairings and the incongruent word pairings. This will be analysed using a paired t-test with a 95% confidence interval.

Beta testing 1 and 2: feasibility study

Recruitment capability will be assessed by calculating the participation rate and will be presented as percentage proportions. Data collection processes and acceptability of outcome measures will be assessed by reviewing data completeness. This will be calculated and presented as percentage proportions. The change between baseline and post-intervention measures will be compared using paired t-tests for parametric data and the Wilcoxon signed rank-test for nonparametric or categorical data. As this is a feasibility study, there will be no inferential statistics. Uptake and adherence of pulmonary rehabilitation will be calculated and presented as percentage proportions.

Qualitative data from the focus groups and interviews will be analysed independently and then collaboratively between two authors using the reflexive thematic analysis technique [56]. This is a six-step process involving data familiarisation, code generation, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes and producing the written findings.

Monitoring

Data monitoring and auditing

The research will be conducted in accordance with the current approved protocol (version 7.0; 9 November 2021), good clinical practice, relevant regulations and sponsor standard operating procedures. To ensure that it meets these requirements, the sponsor has permission to monitor and audit the study data.

Ethics and dissemination

Research ethics approval

This research was given ethical approval by South Leicester Research Ethics Committee, reference 21/EM/0084.

Access to data

Researchers who are granted access to the study database will have access to the dataset.

Dissemination policy

Upon completion of this research, the findings will be disseminated in line with the host site's dissemination policy. A final trial report will be prepared and sent to the research ethics committee within 12 months of the end of the research. The findings will be submitted for international publication and presentation at national and international conferences. Participants will be invited to a dissemination event where the results of the research are presented to them.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material 00645-2021.supplement

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Author contributions: This research was conceived by A.C. Barradell with supervision from S.J. Singh, L. Houchen-Wolloff, N. Robertson and H.L. Bekker. All authors contributed to this manuscript. A.C. Barradell will take overall responsibility for the conduct of this research, including study design, conduct, data analysis and interpretation, manuscript writing and dissemination of results.

  • This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identifier number NCT04990180. Researchers who are granted access to the study database will have access to the dataset. Informed consent and PtDA materials are available upon request.

  • Conflict of interests: A.C. Barradell reports receiving support for the present manuscript from NIHR ARC East Midlands, and Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: The study sponsor is the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. This study contributes to A.C. Barradell's PhD. It is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (East Midlands) and the Centre for Exercise and Rehabilitation Science. This study is supported by the NIHR Research Studentship Agreement. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Dept of Health and Social Care. Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received November 17, 2021.
  • Accepted January 25, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD)
    . Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 2020. Available from: www.goldcopd.org Date last accessed: 11 May 2020.
  2. ↵
    1. McCarthy B,
    2. Casey D,
    3. Devane D, et al.
    Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2: CD003793. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003793.pub3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Casaburi R,
    2. Zuwallack R
    . Pulmonary rehabilitation for management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1329–1335. doi:10.1056/NEJMct0804632
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Horton E,
    2. Mitchell K,
    3. Johnson-Warrington V, et al.
    A self-management programme of activity, coping and education (SPACE) for COPD: a randomised non-inferiority trial in a pulmonary rehabilitation population. Thorax 2013; 68: A15–A16. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-204457.31
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Chaplin E,
    2. Hewitt S,
    3. Apps L, et al.
    The evaluation of an interactive web-based pulmonary rehabilitation programme: protocol for the WEB SPACE for COPD feasibility study. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e008055. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008055
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Apps LD,
    2. Mitchell KE,
    3. Harrison SL, et al.
    The development and pilot testing of the self-management programme of activity, coping and education for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (SPACE for COPD). Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2013; 8: 317–327. doi:10.2147/COPD.S40414
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Mitchell KE,
    2. Johnson-Warrington V,
    3. Apps LD, et al.
    A self-management programme for COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1538–1547. doi:10.1183/09031936.00047814
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Horton EJ,
    2. Mitchell KE,
    3. Johnson-Warrington V, et al.
    Comparison of a structured home-based rehabilitation programme with conventional supervised pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Thorax 2018; 73: 29–36. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-208506
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Houchen-Wolloff L,
    2. Orme M,
    3. Barradell A, et al.
    Web-based self-management program (SPACE for COPD) for individuals hospitalized with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: nonrandomized feasibility trial of acceptability. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2021; 9: e21728. doi:10.2196/21728
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme (NACAP)
    . National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme: Pulmonary Rehabilitation Clinical and Organisational Audit 2019 Report. 2020. Available from: www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/national-asthma-and-copd-audit-programme-nacap-pulmonary-rehabilitation-clinical-0 Date last accessed: 5 October 2021.
  11. ↵
    1. Keating A,
    2. Lee A,
    3. Holland AE
    . What prevents people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from attending pulmonary rehabilitation? A systematic review. Chron Respir Dis 2011; 8: 89–99. doi:10.1177/1479972310393756
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Harrison SL,
    2. Robertson N,
    3. Apps L, et al.
    “We are not worthy” – understanding why patients decline pulmonary rehabilitation following an acute exacerbation of COPD. Disabil Rehabil 2015; 37: 750–756. doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.939770
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hakamy A,
    2. McKeever TM,
    3. Gibson JE, et al.
    The recording and characteristics of pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with COPD using The Health Information Network (THIN) primary care database. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 2017; 27: 58. doi:10.1038/s41533-017-0058-2
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. DiMatteo M
    . Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations: a quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med Care 2004; 42: 200–209. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000114908.90348.f9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Blackstock FC,
    2. ZuWallack R,
    3. Nici L, et al.
    Why don't our patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease listen to us? The enigma of nonadherence. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13: 317–323. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201509-600PS
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Charles C,
    2. Gafni A,
    3. Whelan T
    . Decision-making in the physician–patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 49: 651–661. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00145-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Bekker H,
    2. Thornton JG,
    3. Airey CM, et al.
    Informed decision-making: an annotated bibliography and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1–156. doi:10.3310/hta3010
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Stacey D,
    2. Légaré F,
    3. Lewis K, et al.
    Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 4: CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
    OpenUrl
    1. Stacey D,
    2. Légaré F,
    3. Lewis K, et al.
    Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 4: CD001431.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Feldman-Stewart D,
    2. O'Brien MA,
    3. Clayman ML, et al.
    Providing information about options in patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: S4. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S4
    OpenUrl
    1. Hoffman AS,
    2. Volk RJ,
    3. Saarimaki A, et al.
    Delivering patient decision aids on the internet: definitions, theories, current evidence, and emerging research areas. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: Suppl. 2, S13. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S13
    OpenUrl
    1. Sepucha KR,
    2. Borkhoff CM,
    3. Lally J, et al.
    Establishing the effectiveness of patient decision aids: key constructs and measurement instruments. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: Suppl. 2, S12. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S12
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Coronado-Vázquez V,
    2. Canet-Fajas C,
    3. Delgado-Marroquín MT, et al.
    Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in primary health care: a systematic review. Medicine 2020; 99: e21389. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000021389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Hajizadeh N,
    2. Basile M,
    3. Andrews J, et al.
    Informed Together, a decision aid to increase informed shared decision-making about intubation in patients with severe COPD – results of feasibility testing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2017; 195: A1399. doi:10.1164/rccm.201608-1561LE
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Wilson KG,
    2. Aaron SD,
    3. Vandemheen KL, et al.
    Evaluation of a decision aid for making choices about intubation and mechanical ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57: 88–95. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.04.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Légaré F,
    2. Ratté S,
    3. Stacey D, et al.
    Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision-making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 5: CD006732. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub2
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Chan AW,
    2. Tetzlaff JM,
    3. Altman DG, et al.
    SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 200–207. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Stilwell D,
    3. Kryworuchko J, et al.
    A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: Suppl. 2, S2. doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Elwyn G,
    2. O'Connor A,
    3. Stacey D, et al.
    Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 2006; 333: 417. doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.AE
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. O'Connor A
    . Ottawa Decision Support Framework to Address Decisional Conflict, 2006. Available from: www.ohri.ca/decisionaid
  27. ↵
    1. O'Cathain A,
    2. Croot L,
    3. Duncan E, et al.
    Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e029954. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Greenwald AG,
    2. McGhee DE,
    3. Schwartz JLK
    . Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 74: 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Butterfield LD,
    2. Maglio AST,
    3. Borgen WA, et al.
    Using the Enhanced Critical Incident Technique in counselling psychology research. Can J Couns Psychother 2009; 43: 265–282.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Stoet G
    . PsyToolkit: a software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behav Res Methods 2010; 42: 1096–1104. doi:10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Stoet G
    . PsyToolkit: a novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teach Psychol 2017; 44: 24–31. doi:10.1177/0098628316677643
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Latimier A,
    2. Riegert A,
    3. Peyre H, et al
    . Does pre-testing promote better retention than post-testing? NPJ Sci Learn 2019; 4: 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41539-019-0053-1.
    OpenUrl
    1. Thériault G,
    2. Bell NR,
    3. Grad R, et al
    . Teaching shared decision making: an essential competency. Can Fam Physician 2019; 65: 514–516.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    1. Mata ÁNS,
    2. de Azevedo KPM,
    3. Braga LP, et al
    . Training in communication skills for self-efficacy of health professionals: a systematic review. Hum Resour Health 2021; 19: 675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00574-3.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
    . 2020. Shared Decision Making. NICE Guideline NG197. Available from: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197
  34. ↵
    1. Elwyn G,
    2. Tsulukidze M,
    3. Edwards A, et al.
    Using a ‘talk’ model of shared decision-making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION 5 Item. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 93: 265–271. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. O'Connor AM
    . Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 25–30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Hibbard JH,
    2. Stockard J,
    3. Mahoney ER, et al.
    Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 2004; 39: 1005–1026. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Jones PW,
    2. Harding G,
    3. Berry P, et al.
    Development and first validation of the COPD Assessment Test. Eur Respir J 2009; 34: 648–654. doi:10.1183/09031936.00102509
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  38. ↵
    1. White R,
    2. Walker P,
    3. Roberts S, et al.
    Bristol COPD Knowledge Questionnaire (BCKQ): testing what we teach patients about COPD. Chron Respir Dis 2006; 3: 123–131. doi:10.1191/1479972306cd117oa
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Williams JEA,
    2. Singh SJ,
    3. Sewell L, et al.
    Health status measurement: sensitivity of the self-reported chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ-SR) in pulmonary rehabilitation. Thorax 2003; 58: 515–518. doi:10.1136/thorax.58.6.515
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Zigmond AS,
    2. Snaith RP
    . The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Hodson M,
    2. Roberts CM,
    3. Andrew S, et al.
    Development and first validation of a patient-reported experience measure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PREM-C9). Thorax 2019; 74: 600–603. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-211732
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Bestall JC,
    2. Paul EA,
    3. Garrod R, et al.
    Usefulness of the Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea scale as a measure of disability in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1999; 54: 581–586. doi:10.1136/thx.54.7.581
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    1. Singh SJ,
    2. Morgan MD,
    3. Scott S, et al.
    Development of a shuttle walking test of disability in patients with chronic airways obstruction. Thorax 1992; 47: 1019–1024. doi:10.1136/thx.47.12.1019
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    1. Revill SM,
    2. Morgan MD,
    3. Singh SJ, et al.
    The endurance shuttle walk: a new field test for the assessment of endurance capacity in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax 1999; 54: 213–222. doi:10.1136/thx.54.3.213
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Browne RH
    . On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med 1995; 14: 1933–1940. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Guest G,
    2. Bunce A,
    3. Johnson L
    . How many interviews are enough? Field Methods 2006; 18: 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Braun V,
    2. Clarke V
    . Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London, Sage Publications, 2013.
  47. ↵
    1. Fugard AJB,
    2. Potts HWW
    . Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool. Int J Soc Res Method 2015; 18: 669–684. doi:10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Finlay L,
    2. Gough B
    . Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences. Oxford, Blackwell Science, 2003.
  49. ↵
    1. Braun V,
    2. Clarke V
    . Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2019; 11: 589–597. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 8 Issue 2 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 8 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study
Amy C. Barradell, Linzy Houchen-Wolloff, Noelle Robertson, Hilary L. Bekker, Sally J. Singh
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00645-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00645-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study
Amy C. Barradell, Linzy Houchen-Wolloff, Noelle Robertson, Hilary L. Bekker, Sally J. Singh
ERJ Open Research Apr 2022, 8 (2) 00645-2021; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00645-2021
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Supplementary material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • COPD and smoking
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • The RISE study protocol: Resilience lmpacted by positive Stressful Events for people with cystic fibrosis
  • Hypnosis for COPD-related anxiety and dyspnoea in PR
Show more Study protocol

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society