Developing novel evidence-based interventions to promote asthma action plan use: a cross-study synthesis of evidence from randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
An evidence-based, point-of-care tool to guide completion of asthma action plans in practice
The European respiratory journal, 2017
Asthma action plans (AAPs) reduce healthcare utilisation, improve quality of life and are recommended across guidelines. However, fewer than 25% of patients receive an AAP, partly due to prescribers' inability to complete "yellow zone" instructions (how to intensify therapy for acute loss of control). We sought to review best evidence to develop a practical, evidence-based tool to facilitate yellow zone guidance in adults.We reviewed recent asthma guidelines and adult studies addressing acute loss of asthma control (January 2010 to March 2016). We developed evidence-based rules for yellow zone therapy and operational guidelines to maximise adherence and minimise errors.We reviewed three guidelines and 11 manuscripts (2486 abstracts screened). Recommendations were comparable but some areas lacked guidance. For 15/43 asthma regimens, the commonly recommended four- to five-fold yellow zone inhaled corticosteroid dose increase was problematic due to regulatory dose limits....
A qualitative study of action plans for asthma
BMJ, 2002
Objectives To investigate the perspectives of patients with asthma on the use of an action plan and the implementation of this plan during an asthma attack that culminated in a visit to an emergency department. Design Qualitative study. Setting Tertiary teaching hospital, suburban hospital, and rural hospital. Participants 62 patients aged 18 to 69 years who presented to an emergency department with asthma over a two month period.
International Health, 2018
Background: Written personalized asthma action plans are recommended as part of patient education and self-management. Objectives: To enable asthmatic adults to proactively self-manage bronchial asthma and sustain asthma quiescent status through utilization of the Asthma Action Plan (AAP), and to establish a feasible asthmatic/care taker-health care provider communication. Design: Randomized controlled trial with cluster sampling by pulmonologists. Setting and participants: The study comprised 320 chronic asthmatic patients attending the chest department at the main health insurance hospital in Alexandria that were randomly allocated as the intervention group (AAIG; n=160) that received standard care and intervention by the AAP and a control group (AACG; n=160) that received the routine standard of care. Data were collected through an interviewing questionnaire. The study continued over a 6-month period and passed into three phase stations. During the preparatory phase the health care provider managed to explain, fill and simplify the use of the Arabic version of the AAP, to explain the correct utilization of the weekly follow-up form and to emphasize the weekly communication/ visit with the health care provider (HCP) to update their weekly follow-up records. Follow-up was done on the 90th and 180th days from the launch of the study, respectively. The study asthmatics were subjected to history-taking of their asthma symptoms, signs and triggers, and a review of their medical/peak expiratory flow records, as well as his/her daily activity and exercise. Results: The AAIG experienced superiority of the average of the green zone days ('doing well') with significantly more episodes of early asthma flare-up self-management concomitant with prominent fewer emergency department visits, hospitalization, admission at the ICU, private health facility, and days of sickness leaves and absenteeism. A preponderance of the high and medium adherence levels to asthma medications, avoidance of asthma triggers and smoking was achieved by the AAIG. Conclusions: AAP was the basis for effective patient-health care provider communication and patient real time asthma flare-up self-management to achieve and sustain better asthma control in asthmatic adults.
Asthma control and action plans
The European respiratory journal, 2017
KOURI et al. [1] in Canada have developed a tool to guide completion of asthma action plans (AAPs). In their rationale, they suggest that "fewer than 25% of patients receive an AAP, partly due to prescribers' inability to complete 'yellow zone' instructions (how to intensify therapy for acute loss of control)". The authors "reviewed recent asthma guidelines and adult studies addressing acute loss of asthma control" and "developed evidence-based rules for yellow zone therapy and operational guidelines to maximise adherence and minimise errors". There is a substantial inherent flaw in this study, both in its rationale and methodology. The authors suggested that completing yellow-zone instructions equates with advice regarding how to intensify therapy for acute loss of control.
Background: Asthma self-management remains poorly implemented in clinical practice despite overwhelming evidence of improved healthcare outcomes, reflected in guideline recommendations over three decades. To inform delivery in routine care, we synthesised evidence from implementation studies of self-management support interventions. Methods: We systematically searched eight electronic databases (1980 to 2012) and research registers, and performed snowball and manual searches for studies evaluating implementation of asthma self-management in routine practice. We included, and adapted systematic review methodology to reflect, a broad range of implementation study designs. We extracted data on study characteristics, process measures (for example, action plan ownership), asthma control (for example, patient reported control questionnaires, days off school/work, symptom-free days) and use of health services (for example, admissions, emergency department attendances, unscheduled consultations). We assessed quality using the validated Downs and Black checklist, and conducted a narrative synthesis informed by Kennedy's whole systems theoretical approach (considering patient, practitioner and organisational components and the interaction between these). Results: We included 18 studies (6 randomised trials, 2 quasi-experimental studies, 8 with historical controls and 3 with retrospective comparators) from primary, secondary, community and managed care settings serving a total estimated asthma population of 800,000 people in six countries. In these studies, targeting professionals (n = 2) improved process, but had no clinically significant effect on clinical outcomes. Targeting patients (n = 6) improved some process measures, but had an inconsistent impact on clinical outcomes. Targeting the organisation (n = 3) improved process measures, but had little/no effect on clinical outcomes. Interventions that explicitly addressed patient, professional and organisational factors (n = 7) showed the most consistent improvement in both process and clinical outcomes. Authors highlighted the importance of health system commitment, skills training for professionals, patient education programmes supported by regular reviews, and on-going evaluation of implementation effectiveness. Conclusions: Our methodology offers an exemplar of reviews synthesising the heterogeneous implementation literature. Effective interventions combined active engagement of patients, with training and motivation of professionals embedded within an organisation in which self-management is valued. Healthcare managers should consider how they can promote a culture of actively supporting self-management as a normal, expected, monitored and remunerated aspect of the provision of care.
Trials, 2013
Background: Supporting self-management behaviours is recommended guidance for people with asthma. Preliminary work suggests that a brief, intensive, patient-centred intervention may be successful in supporting people with asthma to participate in life roles and activities they value. We seek to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a brief, goal-setting intervention delivered in the context of an asthma review consultation. Methods/design: A two armed, single-blinded, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted in UK primary care. Randomisation will take place at the practice level. We aim to recruit a total of 80 primary care patients with active asthma from at least eight practices across two health boards in Scotland (10 patients per practice resulting in~40 in each arm). Patients in the intervention arm will be asked to complete a novel goal-setting tool immediately prior to an asthma review consultation. This will be used to underpin a focussed discussion about their goals during the asthma review. A tailored management plan will then be negotiated to facilitate achieving their prioritised goals. Patients in the control arm will receive a usual care guideline-based review of asthma. Data on quality of life, asthma control and patient confidence will be collected from both arms at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Data on health services resource use will be collected from all patient records 6 months pre-and post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with healthcare staff and a purposive sample of patients to elicit their views and experiences of the trial. The outcomes of interest in this feasibility trial are the ability to recruit patients and healthcare staff, the optimal method of delivering the intervention within routine clinical practice, and acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention among patients and staff.
A systematic review of the implementation and impact of asthma protocols
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2014
Background: Asthma is one of the most common childhood illnesses. Guideline-driven clinical care positively affects patient outcomes for care. There are several asthma guidelines and reminder methods for implementation to help integrate them into clinical workflow. Our goal is to determine the most prevalent method of guideline implementation; establish which methods significantly improved clinical care; and identify the factors most commonly associated with a successful and sustainable implementation. Methods: PUBMED (MEDLINE), OVID CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE. Study Selection: Studies were included if they evaluated an asthma protocol or prompt, evaluated an intervention, a clinical trial of a protocol implementation, and qualitative studies as part of a protocol intervention. Studies were excluded if they had non-human subjects, were studies on efficacy and effectiveness of drugs, did not include an evaluation component, studied an educational intervention only, or were a case report, survey, editorial, letter to the editor. Results: From 14,478 abstracts, we included 101 full-text articles in the analysis. The most frequent study design was pre-post, followed by prospective, population based case series or consecutive case series, and randomized trials. Paper-based reminders were the most frequent with fully computerized, then computer generated, and other modalities. No study reported a decrease in health care practitioner performance or declining patient outcomes. The most common primary outcome measure was compliance with provided or prescribing guidelines, key clinical indicators such as patient outcomes or quality of life, and length of stay. Conclusions: Paper-based implementations are by far the most popular approach to implement a guideline or protocol. The number of publications on asthma protocol reminder systems is increasing. The number of computerized and computer-generated studies is also increasing. Asthma guidelines generally improved patient care and practitioner performance regardless of the implementation method.