ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2026
Community health workers serving Veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot intervention development and feasibility study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) causes significant morbidity and mortality and is a substantial burden on healthcare systems. Disease self-management programs can reduce symptoms, lower hospitalizations, and improve patient quality of life. We adapted and piloted a COPD self-management program delivered by community health workers (CHWs) to Veterans. This study aimed to assess participants' perceived acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention. We investigated barriers and facilitators to achieving disease self-management practices. We explored participants' COPD health outcomes. Finally, we gathered insights from participants and CHWs to inform potential improvements.
methodsNine Veterans enrolled in the 12-week intervention and received a series of 9 CHW home, phone, or video visits. We assessed perceived intervention acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility qualitatively and quantitatively. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews with intervention participants and their CHWs on overall perceptions of the intervention. An additional analysis phase included translation of the results into suggestions for future adaptations by the multi-disciplinary investigator team. We administered surveys on self-reported acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the intervention, as well as COPD health outcomes.
resultsThe intervention had high participant-perceived acceptability (4.2 ± 0.8), appropriateness (4.3 ± 0.5), and feasibility (4.2 ± 0.6), on a scale from 1 to 5. Interviewed participants highlighted the benefits of CHW-led education on COPD understanding, breathing techniques, and proper inhaler use. Participants further emphasized the social support and connection to resources provided by the program. Overall, the participants and their CHW providers shared feedback that demonstrate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of this intervention. Exploratory results also showed improved health-related outcomes. Some suggested adaptations emerged, such as including optional caregiver involvement and addressing potential stigma related to COPD.
conclusionsThe pilot presents a promising CHW-led intervention to improve COPD self-management. These initial results suggest the intervention is acceptable, feasible, and appropriate and could improve health outcomes, including quality of life. Future programs or randomized controlled trial design could benefit from the study's recommended adaptations.
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.