Abby Cabrera
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Abby Cabrera has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Danielle Hessler
Department of Family Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
1 shared publication - David H. Thom
University of California San Francisco Department of Family and Community Medicine San Francisco, CA
1 shared publication - George Su
Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Allergy and Sleep Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), CA
1 shared publication - Joan F. Hilton
University of California San Francisco Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics San Francisco, CA
1 shared publication - Marianna Kong
University of California San Francisco Department of Family and Community Medicine San Francisco, CA
1 shared publication - Michael B. Potter
University of California San Francisco
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 18 May 2026
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Annals of the American Thoracic Society
- Vol. 23 (10) , 1455-1465
Pulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation model: A randomized controlled trial
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.
- 18 May 2026
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Annals of the American Thoracic Society
- Vol. 23 (10) , 1455-1465
Open AccessPulmonary Specialist Health Coach Consultation model: A randomized controlled trial
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.