4.2 Review

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Symptom Cluster Composition, Associated Factors, and Methodologies: A Systematic Review

Journal

WESTERN JOURNAL OF NURSING RESEARCH
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 395-415

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0193945921995773

Keywords

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; symptom clusters; nursing; theoretical frameworks; symptom assessment tools

Categories

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council [201806170005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review explores symptom clusters in COPD patients, identifying four common clusters but also noting inconsistencies in composition across studies. Future research should focus on establishing a common definition, standardizing criteria for symptom inclusion, and considering patients' subjective experiences.
This systematic review details symptom clusters, their compositions, and associated factors and appraises the methodologies of studies that reported symptom clusters in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Ten studies were eligible for inclusion in this study. Four common symptom clusters were identified. Two theoretical frameworks, four statistical methods, and various symptom assessment tools were used to identify symptom clusters. Factors associated with symptom clusters included demographic, clinical, and biological factors. No studies examined the subjective experiences of symptom clusters. Overall, inconsistencies were identified in the composition of symptom clusters across studies. This may be due to variations in study design, assessment tools, and statistical methods. Future studies should attempt to arrive at a common definition, especially that is theoretically derived, for symptom clusters, standardize the criteria for symptoms for inclusion in the clusters, and focus on patients' subjective experience to inform which clusters are clinically relevant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available