Objective To investigate the long term effectiveness of integrated disease management delivered in primary care on quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care.Design 24 month, multicentre, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial Setting 40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands Participants Patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse, and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.
ObjectivesTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease management (COPD-DM) programme in primary care, called RECODE, compared to usual care.DesignA 2-year cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands.Participants1086 patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team.InterventionsA multidisciplinary team of caregivers was trained in motivational interviewing, setting up individual care plans, exacerbation management, implementing clinical guidelines and redesigning the care process. In addition, clinical decision-making was supported by feedback reports provided by an ICT programme.Main outcome measuresWe investigated the impact on health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Clinical COPD Questionnaire, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire and exacerbations) and costs (healthcare and societal perspective).ResultsThe intervention costs were €324 per patient. Excluding these costs, the intervention group had €584 (95% CI €86 to €1046) higher healthcare costs than did the usual care group and €645 (95% CI €28 to €1190) higher costs from the societal perspective. Health outcomes were similar in both groups, except for 0.04 (95% CI −0.07 to −0.01) less QALYs in the intervention group.ConclusionsThis integrated care programme for patients with COPD that mainly included professionally directed interventions was not cost-effective in primary care.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register NTR2268.
This study aims to (1) examine the variation in implementation of a 2-year chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management programme called RECODE, (2) analyse the facilitators and barriers to implementation and (3) investigate the influence of this variation on health outcomes. Implementation variation among the 20 primary-care teams was measured directly using a self-developed scale and indirectly through the level of care integration as measured with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Interviews were held to obtain detailed information regarding the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Multilevel models were used to investigate the association between variation in implementation and change in outcomes. The teams implemented, on average, eight of the 19 interventions, and the specific package of interventions varied widely. Important barriers and facilitators of implementation were (in)sufficient motivation of healthcare provider and patient, the high starting level of COPD care, the small size of the COPD population per team, the mild COPD population, practicalities of the information and communication technology (ICT) system, and hurdles in reimbursement. Level of implementation as measured with our own scale and the ACIC was not associated with health outcomes. A higher level of implementation measured with the PACIC was positively associated with improved self-management capabilities, but this association was not found for other outcomes. There was a wide variety in the implementation of RECODE, associated with barriers at individual, social, organisational and societal level. There was little association between extent of implementation and health outcomes.
BackgroundCOPD is a highly complex disease to manage as patients show great variation in symptoms and limitations in daily life. In the last decade self-management support of COPD has been introduced as an effective method to improve quality and efficiency of care, and to reduce healthcare costs. Despite the urge to change the organisation of health care and the potential of eHealth to support this, large-scale implementation in daily practice remains behind, especially in the Netherlands.Methods/DesignWe designed a multilevel study, called e-Vita, to investigate different organisational implementation methods of a self-management web portal to support and empower patients with COPD in three different primary care settings. Using a parallel cohort design, the clinical effects of the web portal will be assessed using an interrupted times series (ITS) study design and measured according to changes in health status with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). The different implementations and net benefits of self-management through eHealth on clinical outcomes will be evaluated from human, organisational, and technical perspectives.DiscussionTo our knowledge this is the first study to combine different study designs that enable simultaneous investigation of clinical effects, as well as effects of different organisational implementation methods whilst controlling for confounding effects of the organisational characteristics. We hypothesize that an implementation with higher levels of personal assistance, and integrated in an existing care program will result in increased use of and satisfaction with the platform, thereby increasing health status and diminishing exacerbation and hospitalisation.Trial registrationNTR4098 (31-07-2013)
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.