scholarly journals Self-management of asthma in general practice, asthma control and quality of life: a randomised controlled trial

Thorax ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
B P A Thoonen
2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 758-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erwin C. Vasbinder ◽  
Lucas M.A. Goossens ◽  
Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mölken ◽  
Brenda C.M. de Winter ◽  
Liset van Dijk ◽  
...  

Real-time medication monitoring (RTMM) is a promising tool for improving adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), but has not been sufficiently tested in children with asthma. We aimed to study the effects of RTMM with short message service (SMS) reminders on adherence to ICS, asthma control, asthma-specific quality of life and asthma exacerbation rate; and to study the associated cost-effectiveness.In a multicentre, randomised controlled trial, children (aged 4–11 years) using ICS were recruited from five outpatient clinics and were given an RTMM device for 12 months. The intervention group also received tailored SMS reminders, sent only when a dose was at risk of omission. Outcome measures were adherence to ICS (RTMM data), asthma control (childhood asthma control test questionnaire), quality of life (paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire) and asthma exacerbations. Costs were calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective.We included 209 children. Mean adherence was higher in the intervention group: 69.3%versus57.3% (difference 12.0%, 95% CI 6.7%–17.7%). No differences were found for asthma control, quality of life or asthma exacerbations. Costs were higher in the intervention group, but this difference was not statistically significant.RTMM with tailored SMS reminders improved adherence to ICS, but not asthma control, quality of life or exacerbations in children using ICS for asthma.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 1901509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa M. McDonald ◽  
Vanessa L. Clark ◽  
Laura Cordova-Rivera ◽  
Peter A.B. Wark ◽  
Katherine J. Baines ◽  
...  

RationaleTreatable traits have been proposed as a new paradigm for airway disease management.ObjectivesTo characterise treatable traits in a severe asthma population and to determine the efficacy of targeting treatments to these treatable traits in severe asthma.MethodsParticipants (n=140) with severe asthma were recruited to a cross-sectional study and underwent a multidimensional assessment to characterise treatable traits. Eligible participants with severe asthma (n=55) participated in a 16-week parallel-group randomised controlled trial to determine the feasibility and efficacy of management targeted to predefined treatable traits, compared to usual care in a severe asthma clinic. The patient-reported outcome of health-related quality of life was the trial's primary end-point.Main resultsParticipants with severe asthma had a mean±sd of 10.44±3.03 traits per person, comprising 3.01±1.54 pulmonary and 4.85±1.86 extrapulmonary traits and 2.58±1.31 behavioural/risk factors. Individualised treatment that targeted the traits was feasible and led to significantly improved health-related quality of life (0.86 units, p<0.001) and asthma control (0.73, p=0.01).ConclusionsMultidimensional assessment enables detection of treatable traits and identifies a significant trait burden in severe asthma. Targeting these treatable traits using a personalised-medicine approach in severe asthma leads to improvements in health-related quality of life, asthma control and reduced primary care acute visits. Treatable traits may be an effective way to address the complexity of severe asthma.


2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatiana Zacarias Rondinel ◽  
Isadora Faraco Corrêa ◽  
Luíza Machado Hoscheidt ◽  
Mirelle Hugo Bueno ◽  
Luciano Muller Corrêa da Silva ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e017740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christiane Muth ◽  
Lorenz Uhlmann ◽  
Walter E Haefeli ◽  
Justine Rochon ◽  
Marjan van den Akker ◽  
...  

ObjectivesInvestigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.DesignPragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.Setting72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.Participants505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.InterventionsIntervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months’ follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.ResultsAt baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0–5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI −0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).ConclusionsThe intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.Trial registration numberISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046600
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Hill ◽  
Rachael Moorin ◽  
Susan Slatyer ◽  
Christina Bryant ◽  
Keith Hill ◽  
...  

IntroductionThere are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers’ health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients’ hospital discharge.Methods and analysisA multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient’s discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30–45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers’ HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life—eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000060943.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e041548
Author(s):  
Cristian Ochoa-Arnedo ◽  
Joan Carles Medina ◽  
Aida Flix-Valle ◽  
Dimitra Anastasiadou

IntroductionPsychosocial interventions for patients with breast cancer (BC) have demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing emotional distress and improving quality of life. The current digitisation of screening, monitoring and psychosocial treatment presents the opportunity for a revolution that could improve the quality of care and reduce its economic burden. The objectives of this study are, first, to assess the effectiveness of an e-health platform with integrated and stepped psychosocial services compared with usual psychosocial care, and second, to examine its cost–utility.Methods and analysisThis study is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with two parallel groups: E-health intervention with integrated and stepped psychosocial services vs usual psychosocial care. An estimated sample of 338 patients with BC in the acute survival phase will be recruited from three university hospitals in Catalonia (Spain) and will be randomly assigned to one of two groups. All participants will be evaluated at the beginning of the study (T1: recruitment), 3 months from T1 (T2), 6 months from T1 (T3) and 12 months from T1 (T4). Primary outcome measures will include number of clinical cases detected, waiting time from detection to psychosocial intervention and proportion of cases successfully treated in the different steps of the intervention, as well as outcomes related to emotional distress, quality of life, post-traumatic stress and growth, treatment adherence and therapeutic alliance. Secondary outcomes will include the acceptability of the platform, patients’ satisfaction and usability. For the cost–utility analysis, we will assess quality-adjusted life years and costs related to healthcare utilisation, medication use and adherence, work absenteeism and infrastructure-related and transport-related costs.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Ethics committee of the Institut Català d’Oncologia network in Hospitalet, Spain. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, reports to the funding body, conferences among the scientific community, workshops with patients and media press releases.Trial registration numberOnline Psychosocial Cancer Screening, Monitoring and Stepped Treatment in Cancer Survivors (ICOnnectat-B),NCT04372459.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document