Self-management interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can improve quality of life, reduce hospital admissions, and improve symptoms. However, many factors impede engagement for patients and practitioners. Qualitative research, with its focus on subjective experience, can provide invaluable insights into such factors. Therefore, a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative evidence on COPD self-management from the perspective of patients, carers, and practitioners was conducted. Following a systematic search and screening, 31 studies were appraised and data extracted for analysis. This review found that patients can adapt to COPD; however, learning to self-manage is often a protracted process. Emotional needs are considerable; frustration, depression, and anxiety are common. In addition, patients can face an assortment of losses and limitations on their lifestyle and social interaction. Over time, COPD can consume their existence, reducing motivation. Support from family can prove vital, yet tinged with ambivalence and burden. Practitioners may not have sufficient time, resources, or appropriate skills or confidence to provide effective self-management support, particularly in regard to patients’ psychosocial needs. This can compound patients’ capability to engage in self-management. For COPD self-management to be effective, patients’ psychosocial needs must be prioritised alongside medication and exacerbation management. In addition, patients’ personal beliefs regarding COPD and its management should be reviewed periodically to avoid problematic behaviours and enhance positive adaptions to the disease. Patients with COPD are not a homogenous group and no one intervention will prove effective for all. Finally, practitioners require greater education, training, and support to successfully assist patients.

BackgroundSelf-management interventions (SMIs) are recommended for individuals with COPD to help monitor symptoms and optimize health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, SMIs vary widely in content, delivery, and intensity, making it unclear which methods and techniques are associated with improved outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the current evidence base surrounding the effectiveness of SMIs for improving HRQOL in people with COPD.MethodsSystematic reviews that focused upon SMIs were eligible for inclusion. Intervention descriptions were coded for behavior change techniques (BCTs) that targeted self-management behaviors to address 1) symptoms, 2) physical activity, and 3) mental health. Meta-analyses and meta-regression were used to explore the association between health behaviors targeted by SMIs, the BCTs used, patient illness severity, and modes of delivery, with the impact on HRQOL and emergency department (ED) visits.ResultsData related to SMI content were extracted from 26 randomized controlled trials identified from 11 systematic reviews. Patients receiving SMIs reported improved HRQOL (standardized mean difference =−0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] =−0.25, −0.07; P=0.001) and made fewer ED visits (standardized mean difference =−0.13; 95% CI =−0.23, −0.03; P=0.02) compared to patients who received usual care. Patients receiving SMIs targeting mental health alongside symptom management had greater improvement of HRQOL (Q=4.37; P=0.04) and fewer ED visits (Q=5.95; P=0.02) than patients receiving SMIs focused on symptom management alone. Within-group analyses showed that HRQOL was significantly improved in 1) studies with COPD patients with severe symptoms, 2) single-practitioner based SMIs but not SMIs delivered by a multidisciplinary team, 3) SMIs with multiple sessions but not single session SMIs, and 4) both individual- and group-based SMIs.ConclusionSMIs can be effective at improving HRQOL and reducing ED visits, with those targeting mental health being significantly more effective than those targeting symptom management alone.

Self-management is recognised as an essential criteria for the provision of high quality care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The management of COPD is usually delivered by a wide range of healthcare practitioners. This study aimed to understand the factors affecting self-management of COPD from the perspectives of the different multidisciplinary healthcare teams involved in COPD care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from primary care, specialist respiratory and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) teams. Purposive sampling and snowballing were employed in participant recruitment. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. A total of 20 participants (eight primary care practitioners, seven respiratory specialists and five PR practitioners) were interviewed until data saturation was reached. Participants identified a range of complex and interrelated factors affecting COPD self-management that were grouped into three broad categories—patient, practitioner and organisational/system-level factors. Patient-level factors were predominantly considered as barriers, with COPD knowledge and understanding, and the individual patients’ life circumstances/context being the most prominent issues. Practitioner-level factors identified were practitioners’ speciality, interest and experience in respiratory conditions as the overarching factor that influenced how self-management was understood and practiced. A number of organisational/system-level factors were identified by all practitioners, including inconsistency of referral pathways and the wide variations of different self-management planning tools. Factors affecting self-management of COPD across these three levels need to be tackled equally in order to improve the effectiveness of interventions and to embed and integrate self-management support approaches into routine practice.

Community pharmacists' theoretical understanding of self-care was not reflected in the ways that they portrayed their contributions to self-care support. The current ways in which community pharmacy delivers its services for patient care may need to be re-configured in order to fit into the holistic self-care support paradigm.

ObjectiveTo synthesise the published literature on practitioner, patient and carer views and experiences of shared medical appointments (SMAs) for the management of long-term conditions in primary care.DesignSystematic review of qualitative primary studies.MethodsA systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) and Scopus (SciVerse) from database starting dates to June 2019. Practitioner, patient and carer perspectives were coded separately. Deductive coding using a framework approach was followed by thematic analysis and narrative synthesis. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative studies.ResultsWe identified 18 unique studies that reported practitioner (n=11), patient (n=14) and/or carer perspectivs(n=3). Practitioners reported benefits of SMAs including scope for comprehensive patient-led care, peer support, less repetition and improved efficiency compared with 1:1 care. Barriers included administrative challenges and resistance from patients and colleagues, largely due to uncertainties and unclear expectations. Skilled facilitators, tailoring of SMAs to patient groups, leadership support and teamwork were reported to be important for successful delivery. Patients’ reported experiences were largely positive with the SMAs considered a supportive environment in which to share and learn about self-care, though the need for good facilitation was recognised. Reports of carer experience were limited but included improved communication between carer and patient.ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to indicate whether views and experiences vary between staff, medical condition and/or patient characteristics. Participant experiences may be subject to reporting bias. Policies and guidance regarding best practice need to be developed with consideration given to resource requirements. Further research is needed to capture views about wider and co-occurring conditions, to hear from those without SMA experience and to understand which groups of patients and practitioners should be brought together in an SMA for best effect.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019141893.