How can healthcare professionals promote pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD? A qualitative study

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kylie Hill , Vinicius Cavalheri , Daniel F. Gucciardi , Sarah Hug
{"title":"How can healthcare professionals promote pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD? A qualitative study","authors":"Kylie Hill ,&nbsp;Vinicius Cavalheri ,&nbsp;Daniel F. Gucciardi ,&nbsp;Sarah Hug","doi":"10.1016/j.pec.2025.108781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Despite the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uptake of this intervention is suboptimal. Our group recently noted novel barriers to the uptake of PRPs in people with COPD, such as feeling unworthy of healthcare. Little is known about factors that contribute to this feeling. We explored autobiographical experiences of the interaction between HCPs and people with COPD at the time a PRP was recommended as an appropriate intervention.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This qualitative study was guided by a critical realist perspective. Both HCPs and people with COPD were recruited from tertiary hospitals. Questions were based on the theoretical domains framework and explored the determinants of behaviour related to initiating a referral to a PRP and the person with COPD enrolling in a program. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Data were available on 15 participants with COPD and 38 HCPs. The first theme was that the HCP needed to care for the person and not just treat a disease. Subthemes pertained to language and behaviours of the HCP including, (i) actively listening, (ii) demonstrating genuine empathy, (iii) establishing trust and, (iv) empowering the person with COPD to engage in shared decision-making. The second theme was that the HCP needed to instil hope that pulmonary rehabilitation would benefit the person with COPD. Subthemes comprised; (i) enthusiasm of the referrer and sharing their vicarious experiences that PRPs have helped others, (ii) describing the intervention, allaying fears and personalising a positive outcome following program completion, (iii) having a physician endorse the PRP, (iv) using terms other than ‘pulmonary rehabilitation’.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These data provide a blueprint for interactions in which HCPs can foster people with COPD to accept a referral to a PRP, in a manner that translates to enrolment in a program.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49714,"journal":{"name":"Patient Education and Counseling","volume":"136 ","pages":"Article 108781"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Education and Counseling","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073839912500148X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Despite the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation programs (PRPs) in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), uptake of this intervention is suboptimal. Our group recently noted novel barriers to the uptake of PRPs in people with COPD, such as feeling unworthy of healthcare. Little is known about factors that contribute to this feeling. We explored autobiographical experiences of the interaction between HCPs and people with COPD at the time a PRP was recommended as an appropriate intervention.

Methods

This qualitative study was guided by a critical realist perspective. Both HCPs and people with COPD were recruited from tertiary hospitals. Questions were based on the theoretical domains framework and explored the determinants of behaviour related to initiating a referral to a PRP and the person with COPD enrolling in a program. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Data were available on 15 participants with COPD and 38 HCPs. The first theme was that the HCP needed to care for the person and not just treat a disease. Subthemes pertained to language and behaviours of the HCP including, (i) actively listening, (ii) demonstrating genuine empathy, (iii) establishing trust and, (iv) empowering the person with COPD to engage in shared decision-making. The second theme was that the HCP needed to instil hope that pulmonary rehabilitation would benefit the person with COPD. Subthemes comprised; (i) enthusiasm of the referrer and sharing their vicarious experiences that PRPs have helped others, (ii) describing the intervention, allaying fears and personalising a positive outcome following program completion, (iii) having a physician endorse the PRP, (iv) using terms other than ‘pulmonary rehabilitation’.

Conclusions

These data provide a blueprint for interactions in which HCPs can foster people with COPD to accept a referral to a PRP, in a manner that translates to enrolment in a program.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient Education and Counseling
Patient Education and Counseling 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
11.40%
发文量
384
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Patient Education and Counseling is an interdisciplinary, international journal for patient education and health promotion researchers, managers and clinicians. The journal seeks to explore and elucidate the educational, counseling and communication models in health care. Its aim is to provide a forum for fundamental as well as applied research, and to promote the study of organizational issues involved with the delivery of patient education, counseling, health promotion services and training models in improving communication between providers and patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信