Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation model: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract Rationale Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to overcome in health care settings with limited resources. Objectives Evaluate the efficacy of a pulmonary-specialist-health coach consultation model (intervention) for patients with asthma and/or COPD, relative to usual care (control). Methods Randomized-controlled trial of 16 weeks of intervention versus control for adult English- or Spanish-speaking, low-income patients. Intervention: a lay health coach gathered information from the patient and medical record for remote review by a pulmonary specialist, who provided general recommendations to the primary care clinician. The coach supported implementation of recommendations. Measurements Primary outcomes were receipt of guideline-based care and medications. Secondary outcomes were receipt of chronic lung disease education, breathing-related quality of life and symptoms, patient-rated quality of care, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Longitudinal models for count data were used to estimate Intervention: Control relative rates. Parallel models for continuous data estimated relative means. Main results 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; CI: 1.37-1.90). They were not more likely to receive guideline-based medications in planned analysis using a pooled baseline rate, although post-hoc analysis using arm-specific baseline rates found significant improvement. Intervention patients received more chronic lung disease education and reported greater improvements in breathing-related quality of life, symptoms, and patient-reported quality of care. Conclusions This intervention offers a scalable approach to improve uptake of clinical guidelines in resource-limited primary care practices managing most asthma and COPD care.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Published
2026-05-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/annalsats/aaoag097
Primary Topic
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation model: A randomized controlled trial

Marianna Kong, J HILTON, George Su, Stephanie Tsao et al.
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
article

Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation model: A randomized controlled trial

Marianna Kong, J HILTON, George Su, Stephanie Tsao, Michael B. Potter, Abby Cabrera, Rachel Willard‐Grace, David H. Thom, Danielle Hessler
article en

Abstract

Abstract Rationale Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to overcome in health care settings with limited resources. Objectives Evaluate the efficacy of a pulmonary-specialist-health coach consultation model (intervention) for patients with asthma and/or COPD, relative to usual care (control). Methods Randomized-controlled trial of 16 weeks of intervention versus control for adult English- or Spanish-speaking, low-income patients. Intervention: a lay health coach gathered information from the patient and medical record for remote review by a pulmonary specialist, who provided general recommendations to the primary care clinician. The coach supported implementation of recommendations. Measurements Primary outcomes were receipt of guideline-based care and medications. Secondary outcomes were receipt of chronic lung disease education, breathing-related quality of life and symptoms, patient-rated quality of care, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Longitudinal models for count data were used to estimate Intervention: Control relative rates. Parallel models for continuous data estimated relative means. Main results 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; CI: 1.37-1.90). They were not more likely to receive guideline-based medications in planned analysis using a pooled baseline rate, although post-hoc analysis using arm-specific baseline rates found significant improvement. Intervention patients received more chronic lung disease education and reported greater improvements in breathing-related quality of life, symptoms, and patient-reported quality of care. Conclusions This intervention offers a scalable approach to improve uptake of clinical guidelines in resource-limited primary care practices managing most asthma and COPD care.

Annals of the American Thoracic Society
University of California, San Francisco (US), University of California System (US), San Francisco Department of Public Health (US)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.