Design of a pragmatic trial in minority children presenting to the emergency department with uncontrolled asthma: The CHICAGO Plan

Coordinated Health Care Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) plan

Background

Evidence-based strategies to improve outcomes in minority children with uncontrolled asthma discharged from the emergency department (ED) are needed.

Objectives

This multicenter pragmatic clinical trial was designed to compare an ED-only intervention (decision support tool), an ED-only intervention and home visits by community health workers for 6 months (ED-plus-home), and enhanced usual care (UC).

Methods

Children aged 5 to 11 years with uncontrolled asthma were enrolled. The change over 6 months in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Asthma Impact Scale score in children and Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles score in caregivers were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management.

Results

Recruitment was significantly lower than expected (373 vs 640 expected). Of the 373 children (64% Black and 31% Latino children), only 63% completed the 6-month follow-up visit. In multivariable analyses that accounted for missing data, the adjusted odds ratios and 98% CIs for differences in Asthma Impact Scores or caregivers' Satisfaction with Participation in Social Roles scores were not significant. However, guideline-recommended ED discharge care was significantly improved in the intervention groups versus in the UC group, and self-management behaviors were significantly improved in the ED-plus-home group versus in the ED-only and UC groups.

Conclusions

The ED-based interventions did not significantly improve the primary clinical outcomes, although the study was likely underpowered. Although guideline-recommended ED discharge care and self-management did improve, their effect on clinical outcomes needs further study.

Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma

BACKGROUND

The effects of stakeholder engagement, particularly in comparative effectiveness trials, have not been widely reported. In 2014, eight comparative effectiveness studies targeting African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos with uncontrolled asthma were funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as part of its Addressing Disparities Program. Awardees were required to meaningfully involve patients and other stakeholders. Using specific examples, we describe how these stakeholders substantially changed the research protocols and in other ways participated meaningfully as full partners in the development and conduct of the eight studies.

METHODS

Using the method content analysis of cases, we identified themes regarding the types of stakeholders, methods of engagement, input from the stakeholders, changes made to the research protocols and processes, and perceived benefits and challenges of the engagement process. We used summaries from meetings of the eight teams, results from an engagement survey, and the final research reports as our data source to obtain detailed information. The descriptive data were assessed by multiple reviewers using inductive and deductive qualitative methods and discussed in the context of engagement literature.

RESULTS

Stakeholders participated in the planning, conduct, and dissemination phases of all eight asthma studies. All the studies included clinicians and community representatives as stakeholders. Other stakeholders included patients with asthma, their caregivers, advocacy organizations, and health-system representatives. Engagement was primarily by participation in advisory boards, although six of the eight studies (75%) also utilized focus groups and one-on-one interviews. Difficulty finding a time and location to meet was the most reported challenge to engagement, noted by four of the eight teams (50%). Other reported challenges and barriers to engagement included recruitment of stakeholders, varying levels of enthusiasm among stakeholders, controlling power dynamics, and ensuring that stakeholder involvement was reflected and had true influence on the project.

CONCLUSION

Engagement-driven modifications led to specific changes in study design and conduct that were felt to have increased enrollment and the general level of trust and support of the targeted communities. The level of interaction described, between investigators and stakeholders in each study and between investigator-stakeholder groups, is-we believe-unprecedented and may provide useful guidance for other studies seeking to improve the effectiveness of community-driven research.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Community health workers providing asthma education

Objectives: Children living in urban areas experience disproportionate rates of asthma. Substandard housing conditions in some urban areas contribute to greater exposure to household asthma triggers. This article examines the geographic connection between pediatric asthma and substandard housing in one mid-sized city in Pennsylvania and the effectiveness of a home-based Community Health Worker (CHW) intervention targeted at this high-risk area to improve families' abilities to manage their children's asthma.Methods: The CHWs provided education and resources to families of children diagnosed with mild, moderate or severe persistent asthma. A pre and post-test design was implemented to evaluate if the CHW intervention improved the family's ability to successfully manage their child's asthma. Eighty-one patients completed the program over a six-month period.Results: Results showed significant improvements in the areas of asthma knowledge, fewer missed days of school, fewer days with asthma symptoms, reduction in wheezing and fewer sleep disturbances. There was also a significant decrease in the number of Emergency Department visits and hospital days.Conclusions: By teaching asthma management skills and by addressing in-home triggers, home-based CHW led interventions can be an affordable and effective way for caregivers and children with asthma to improve asthma management.

Design of a home-based intervention for Houston-area African-American adults with asthma: Methods and lessons learned from a pragmatic randomized trial

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that home-based, multicomponent interventions can effectively reduce exposures to asthma triggers and decrease asthma symptoms. However, few of these studies have targeted adults. To address this and other research gaps, we designed and implemented a pragmatic randomized clinical trial, the Houston Home-based Integrated Intervention Targeting Better Asthma Control (HIITBAC) for African Americans, to assess the effectiveness of a home-based intervention to improve asthma control and quality of life in African-American adults-a population disproportionately affected by asthma. The primary goals were to help participants reduce allergens and irritants in their homes and better manage their disease through knowledge, improved medication use, and behavior change. HIITBAC had two groups: clinic-only and home-visit groups. Both groups received enhanced clinical care, but the home-visit group also received a detailed home assessment and four additional home visits spaced over roughly one year. We recruited 263 participants. Of these, 152 (57.8%) were recruited through electronic health record data, 51 (19.4%) through Emergency Medical Services data, and 60 (22.8%) through other efforts (e.g., emergency departments, community events, outreach). Seventy participants (26.6%) were lost to follow up, substantially more in the home-visit than in the clinic-only group. We describe the HIITBAC methodology and cohort, discuss lessons learned about recruitment and retention, and highlight adaptations we implemented to address these lessons.

Childhood Asthma Disparities in Chicago: Developing Approaches to Health Inequities

We conducted a needs assessment to develop an evidence-based, locally tailored asthma care implementation plan for high-risk children with asthma in Chicago. Our team of health policy experts, clinicians, researchers, and designers included extensive stakeholder engagement (N = 162) in a mixed-methods community needs assessment. Results showed the lines of communication and collaboration across sectors were weak; caregivers were the only consistent force and could not always manage this burden. A series of recommendations for interventions and how to implement and measure them were generated. Cooperative, multidisciplinary efforts grounded in the community can target wicked problems such as asthma.

Engaging end-users in intervention research study design

OBJECTIVE

Coordinated Healthcare Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) Plan is a 3-arm multicenter pragmatic trial to evaluate asthma interventions in high-risk Chicago children presenting to emergency departments (ED) with asthma. A formative evaluation with end-users to provide input into the trial design and outcome instruments was conducted prior to trial initiation.

METHODS

A multi-level data gathering framework from the field of design and standard qualitative methods was employed. This included one focus group with asthma Community Health Workers (N = 8), two focus groups with caregivers of children with asthma (N = 9), in-home interviews with caregivers (N = 9), key informant interviews at six EDs and outpatient clinical sites (N = 19), and ED tours and observations (N = 6). Data were presented, discussed, and organized into themes.

RESULTS

Data indicated that changes to the study design and discharge tool were warranted. A key insight was that ED discharge protocols typically place patient education at a single inopportune time, as families are preparing to leave the ED. At this point in time, families are less receptive to education due to fatigue and a desire to expedite the discharge process. The trial design was modified to reposition the discharge asthma plan to occur at earlier "teachable moments." Delivery of the asthma discharge plan was assigned to study-employed ED coordinators instead of ED providers and staff. Other potential challenges to study recruitment and implementation were raised and addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Engagement of end-users in the design phase of implementation research is critical to improve research feasibility and relevance.