Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool: perceptionversusevidence

Abstract

@ERSpublications Multidimensionality should be assessed by studying multi-dimensions, not by using a multidimensional assessment tool

Assessment of Burden of COPD tool: evidence not perception

“…HOUBEN-WILKE et al [1] suggest that although there was a statistically significant difference in patients with a clinical relevant improvement in health status, the mean difference in health status score did not change. In figure 4 of the original article of our study [5] (reproduced here as figure 1), we visualised the change and differences between the intervention and control groups.…”

“…In our qualitative evaluation of the ABC tool [4], we described that patients and healthcare providers evaluate the ABC tool as a very useful instrument that has important added value in daily care. HOUBEN-WILKE et al [1] suggest that the simplicity of the balloons masks the lack of scientific and clinical evidence. However, we believe that simplicity is, if anything, the strength of the tool, confirmed by patients and healthcare providers participating in the trial [4], and by the significant positive results of the trial: the use of the ABC tool significantly increased health status and quality of care [5].…”

“…In addition, HOUBEN-WILKE et al [1] raised some issues regarding the methodology and interpretation of the study results. Regarding potential baseline differences, we have indeed not tested for between-group statistical differences at baseline.…”

“…For details of our analyses, see the Statistical Analyses in the Methods section and see the legend of table 2 in our original article [5]. @ERSpublications ABC tool affects HRQoL and quality of primary/secondary COPD care but has not been tested in tertiary settings http://ow.ly/HZYF30cmTsx HOUBEN-WILKE et al [1] correctly state that we did not report a minimal clinically important difference for the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) in our study as this cut-off point is not available in the literature. The statistically significant improvement we found, however, is comparable to changes observed in other studies [9,10].…”

“…We checked whether there is a correlation between a change in health status of patients and an improvement in perceived quality of care, as HOUBEN-WILKE et al [1] suggest. These post hoc analyses showed that there is indeed a significant correlation between the difference in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score between baseline and follow-up, and the difference in the decision support subdomain of PACIC (r=−0.160, p=0.008).…”