ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7723-5244
Current Organisation
Hull York Medical School, University of Hull
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 08-05-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJSPCARE-2018-001749
Abstract: To examine whether use of a hand-held fan (‘fan’) improves breathlessness and increases physical activity. A secondary exploratory analysis using pooled data from the fan arms of two feasibility randomised controlled trials in people with chronic breathlessness: (1) fan and activity advice vs activity advice, (2) activity advice alone or with the addition or the ‘calming hand’, or the fan, or both. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis to explore patient characteristics associated with benefit (eg age, sex, diagnosis, general self-efficacy). Forty-one participants were allocated the fan (73 years (IQR 65–76, range 46–88), 59% male, 20 (49%) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), three (7%) heart failure, three (7%) cancer). Thirty-five (85%) reported that the fan helped breathing, and 22 (54%) reported increased physical activity. Breathlessness benefit was more likely in older people, those with COPD and those with a carer. However, due to the small s le size none of these findings were statistically significant. Those with COPD were more likely to use the fan than people with other diagnoses (OR 5.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 56.21, p=0.120)). These exploratory data support that the fan helps chronic breathlessness in most people and adds new data to indicate that the fan is perceived to increase people’s physical activity. There is also a signal of possible particular benefits in people with COPD which is worthy of further study.
Publisher: European Respiratory Society (ERS)
Date: 08-2017
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00262-2017
Abstract: This study explored the benefits of a hand-held fan as perceived by patients with chronic breathlessness and their carers.A secondary multimethod analysis was conducted of interview data collected in three clinical trials. Two researchers independently coded level of benefit qualitatively reported by each patient. Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to explore perceived benefit as a factor of sex, age and diagnosis. Qualitative analysis used an integrative method.133 patients commented on the fan, of whom 72 had a carer. Diagnoses included nonmalignant (n=91, 68.4%) and malignant (n=21, 15.8%) conditions. Of 111 patients who provided codable data, four (3.6%) perceived no benefit, 16 (14.4%) were uncertain, 80 (72.0%) perceived some benefit and 11 (10.0%) perceived very substantial benefit. Multivariate analysis was inconclusive. Benefit was described in terms of shorter recovery time, especially after activity. 10 (7.5%) patients said the fan reduced their need for home oxygen or inhaled β-agonist medications. Negative perceptions of a few included dislike of the cooling sensation and embarrassment in public.Findings suggest that a hand-held fan is a portable intervention with few disadvantages from which most patients with chronic breathlessness will derive benefit alongside other nonpharmacological and pharmacological strategies. Research is needed to optimise guidance on fan administration.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-07-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJSPCARE-2021-002962
Abstract: Non-medical devices such as the handheld fan (fan), mobility aids (wheeled walkers with seats) and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) devices offer benefits for patient management of chronic breathlessness. We examined the published evidence regarding patient, carer and clinician use of the fan, mobility aids and IMT devices for chronic breathlessness management, and the potential barriers and facilitators to day-to-day use in a range of settings. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Papers were imported into EndNote and Rayyan for review against a priori eligibility criteria. Outcome data relevant to use were extracted and categorised as potential barriers and facilitators, and a narrative synthesis exploring reasons for similarities and differences conducted. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (n=5 fan, n=2 mobility aids and n=0 IMT devices). All of the studies presented patient use of non-medical devices only. Patients found the fan easy to use at home. Mobility aids were used mainly for outdoor activities. Outdoor use for both devices were associated with embarrassment. Key barriers included: appearance credibility self-stigma technical specifications. Common facilitators were ease of use, clinical benefit and feeling safe with the device. The efforts of patients, carers and clinicians to adopt and use non-medical devices for the management of chronic breathlessness is impeded by lack of implementation research. Future research should improve knowledge of the barriers and facilitators to use. This would enhance understanding of how decision-making in patient–carer–clinician triads impacts on non-medical devices use for breathlessness management.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 08-03-2019
Abstract: Chronic breathlessness is a neglected symptom of advanced diseases. To examine the effect of airflow for chronic breathlessness relief. Exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane databases were searched (1985–2018) for observational studies or randomised controlled trials of airflow as intervention or comparator. Selection against predefined inclusion criteria, quality appraisal and data extraction was conducted by two independent reviewers with access to a third for unresolved differences. ‘Before and after’ breathlessness measures from airflow arms were analysed. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible. In all, 16 of 78 studies (n = 929) were included: 11 randomised controlled trials of oxygen versus medical air, 4 randomised controlled trials and 1 fan cohort study. Three meta-analyses were possible: (1) Fan at rest in three studies (n = 111) offered significant benefit for breathlessness intensity (0–100 mm visual analogue scale and 0–10 numerical rating scale), mean difference −11.17 (95% confidence intervals (CI) −16.60 to −5.74), p = 0.06 I 2 64%. (2) Medical air via nasal cannulae at rest in two studies (n = 89) improved breathlessness intensity (visual analogue scale), mean difference −12.0 mm, 95% CI −7.4 to −16.6, p 0.0001 I 2 = 0%. (3) Medical airflow during a constant load exercise test before and after rehabilitation (n = 29) in two studies improved breathlessness intensity (modified Borg scale, 0–10), mean difference −2.9, 95% CI −3.2 to −2.7, p 0.0001 I 2 = 0%. Airflow appears to offer meaningful relief of chronic breathlessness and should be considered as an adjunct treatment in the management of breathlessness.
Publisher: European Respiratory Society (ERS)
Date: 24-08-2022
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00257-2022
Abstract: One-fifth of emergency department presentations by ambulance are due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. We explored the feasibility of an evaluation-phase, cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic-administered, non-pharmacological breathlessness intervention for people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness at ambulance call-out (BREATHE) regarding breathlessness intensity and conveyance to hospital. This mixed-methods, feasibility cRCT ( ISRCTN80330546 ) randomised paramedics to usual care or intervention plus usual care. Retrospective patient consent to use call-out data (primary end-point) and prospective patient/carer consent for follow-up was sought. Potential primary outcomes included breathlessness intensity (numerical rating scale) and conveyance. Follow-up included: interviews with patients/carers and questionnaires at 14 days, 1 and 6 months paramedic focus groups and surveys. Recruitment was during COVID-19, with high demands on paramedics and fewer call-outs by eligible patients. We enrolled 29 paramedics nine withdrew. Randomisation/trial procedures were acceptable. Paramedics recruited 13 patients, not meeting recruitment target (n=36) eight patients and three carers were followed-up. Data quality was good but insufficient for future s le size estimation. The intervention did not extend call-out time, was delivered with fidelity and was acceptable to patients, carers and paramedics. There were no repeat call-outs within 48 h. All trained paramedics strongly recommended BREATHE as a highly relevant, simple intervention. Patient recruitment to target was not feasible during the pandemic. Training and intervention were acceptable and delivered with fidelity. Results include valuable information on recruitment, consent, attrition and data collection that will inform the design and delivery of a definitive trial.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-04-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S12890-022-01925-Z
Abstract: The battery-operated hand-held fan (‘fan’) is an inexpensive and portable non-pharmacological intervention for chronic breathlessness. Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests the fan reduces breathlessness intensity and improves physical activity in patients with a range of advanced chronic conditions. Qualitative data from these trials suggests the fan may also reduce anxiety and improve daily functioning for many patients. This study aimed to explore barriers and facilitators to the fan’s implementation in specialist respiratory care as a non-pharmacological intervention for chronic breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A qualitative approach was taken, using focus groups. Participants were clinicians from any discipline working in specialist respiratory care at two hospitals. Questions asked about current fan-related practice and perceptions regarding benefits, harms and mechanisms, and factors influencing its implementation. Analysis used a mixed inductive/deductive approach. Forty-nine participants from nursing (n = 30), medical (n = 13) and allied health (n = 6) disciplines participated across 9 focus groups. The most influential facilitator was a belief that the fan’s benefits outweighed disadvantages. Clinicians’ beliefs about the fan’s mechanisms determined which patient sub-groups they targeted, for ex le anxious or palliative/end-stage patients. Barriers to implementation included a lack of clarity about whose role it was to implement the fan, what advice to provide patients, and limited access to fans in hospitals. Few clinicians implemented the fan for acute-on-chronic breathlessness or in combination with other interventions. Implementation of the fan in specialist respiratory care may require service- and clinician-level interventions to ensure it is routinely recommended as a first-line intervention for chronic breathlessness in patients for whom this symptom is of concern, regardless of COPD stage.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Flavia Swan.