ArticleF1000Research2024
Patient education for individuals with Interstitial Lung Disease: A scoping review.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Living with pulmonary fibrosis: how affected people experience disease-related information, health services and self-management strategies.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Specific content for education and self-management programmes for people with pulmonary fibrosis: a co-creation, multiphase, mixed-method study.ERJ open research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is a severe and rapidly progressing disease with a high fatality rate. Patient education (PE) has been demonstrated to promote long-term adherence to exercise and lifestyle improvements by assisting patients in developing self-management techniques. Our scoping review's goal was to chart out the prevailing level of research about the content, processes, and effectiveness of PE for patients with ILD. Methods: The relevant databases were searched using the rules provided by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: an approach for JBI scoping reviews. Individuals with ILD, published in English between the years of inception and 2020, and describing PE administered by various healthcare practitioners were among the 355 studies found and reviewed. Thirteen studies met these criteria. Results: PE delivery process, delivery techniques, quality of life assessments, common PE themes, and healthcare professional participation were all recognized and cataloged. Conclusion: Despite the fact that healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists) provide PE to patients with ILD regularly, the PE provided varies greatly (contents of PE, process of delivery and delivery techniques). During the scoping review, a significant variation in the themes was addressed. They could not provide any evidence-based specific recommendations for all healthcare practitioners due to the studies' heterogeneity and lack of effectiveness measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.