Evidence Hub

Adherence-enhancing interventions for pharmacological and oxygen therapy in patients with COPD: a systematic review and component network meta-analyses

O. Ammous, R. Kampo, M. Wollsching-Strobel, Maximilian Zimmermann, Stefan Andreas, T. Friede, Doreen Kroppen, S. Stanzel et al.

European Respiratory Review, 2024

5,775 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Introduction Adherence to COPD management strategies is complex, and it is unclear which intervention may enhance it. Objectives We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of adherence-enhancing interventions, alone or compared to interventions, for patients with COPD. Methods This review comprises a component network meta-analysis with a structured narrative synthesis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and trial registries on 9 September 2023. We included controlled studies that explored adherence in patients with COPD. Two review authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction and the risk of bias assessment. We involved patients with COPD in developing this systematic review through focus group interviews and displayed the findings in pre-designed logic models. Results We included 33 studies with 5775 participants. We included 13 studies in the component network meta-analysis that explored adherence. It was mainly assessed through questionnaires. As a continuous outcome, there was a tendency mainly for education (standardised mean difference 1.26, 95% CI 1.13–1.38, very low certainty of evidence) and motivation (mean difference 1.85, 95% CI 1.19–2.50, very low certainty of evidence) to improve adherence. As a dichotomous outcome (e.g. adherent/non-adherent), we found a possible benefit with education (odds ratio 4.77, 95% CI 2.25–10.14, low certainty of evidence) but not with the other components. We included six studies that reported quality of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,775 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free