Patient-experienced effect of an active implementation of a disease management programme for COPD – a randomised trial

Smidth, Margrethe; Olesen, Frede; Fenger‐Grøn, Morten; Vedsted, Peter

doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-147

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…@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].…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

Assessment of Burden of COPD tool: evidence not perception

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We thank HOUBEN-WILKE et al. [1] for their comments on the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool. They raised questions about the purpose of the ABC tool. The aims of ABC were clarified before its development, in the study protocol [2]. The ABC tool is multifaceted and was developed to measure burden of disease, facilitating shared decision making and formulation of a personal treatment plan [2-5]. All of these purposes relate to increasing self-management and stimulating behavioural change, which are, most often, important components of individual treatment plans. The goal of most treatment plans is to increase health status. Health status was therefore the primary outcome of our study [2-5]. We agree with HOUBEN-WILKE et al. [1] that comorbidities play a major role in the burden and management of COPD. Both in the study protocol [2] and the article describing the effectiveness study [5], we describe that comorbidity is part of this tool.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 89%

Assessment of Burden of COPD tool: evidence not perception

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 16 As no specific missing data rules are provided for the PACIC, it was decided to only include patients in the analyses if at least 50% of the questions were completed. 24 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveAssessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care.MethodsA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7) aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter (eg, lung function) and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC; a measurement of perceived quality of care).ResultsAt 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). No difference was found on the CAT (−0.26 points (scores ranging from 0 to 40); 95% CI −1.52 to 0.99). The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group (0.32 points (scores ranging from 1 to 5); 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50).ConclusionsThis study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care.Trial registration numberNTR3788; Results.

show abstract

“…Second, evidence from the literature shows that the effectiveness of the CCM is positively related to the number of interventions provided [29,30], implying, therefore, a sense of comprehensiveness. Previous studies showed, however, that besides the number of interventions the intensity of these interventions and active strategies to support the implementation of these interventions were related to improved quality of care and reduced health care utilization [31,32]. Therefore, in future studies, these elements should complement the number of DMP interventions when defining the DMP comprehensiveness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%