Providing patients with reviews of evidence about COPD treatments: a controlled trial of outcomes

Behavioral interventions for vaccination uptake: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Human behavior and more specifically behavioral insight-based approaches to vaccine uptake have often been overlooked. While there have been a few narrative reviews indexed in Medline on behavioral interventions to increase vaccine uptake, to our knowledge, none have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering not just high but also low-and-middle income countries.

METHODS

We included 613 studies from the Medline database in our systematic review and meta-analysis categorizing different behavioral interventions in 9 domains: education campaigns, on-site vaccination, incentives, free vaccination, institutional recommendation, provider recommendation, reminder and recall, message framing, and vaccine champion. Additionally, considering that there is variability in the acceptance of vaccines among different populations, we assessed studies from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), separately.

FINDINGS

Our results showed that behavioral interventions can considerably improve vaccine uptake in most settings. All domains that we examined improved vaccine uptake with the highest effect size associated with provider recommendation (OR: 3.4 (95%CI: 2.5-4.6); Domain: motivation) and on-site vaccination (OR: 2.9 (95%CI: 2.3-3.7); Domain: practical issues). While the number of studies conducted in LMICs was smaller, the quality of studies was similar with those conducted in HICs. Nevertheless, there were variations in the observed effect sizes.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings indicate that "provider recommendation" and "on-site vaccination" along with other behavioral interventions can be employed to increase vaccination rates globally.

Interventions to Increase the Rate of Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Scoping Review

Background and Objective: Current evidence suggests that patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should receive influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations. Despite international guidelines recommending vaccination in patients with COPD, many patients remain unvaccinated. Reasons for vaccine non-acceptance are multifaceted and are likely to be influenced by multiple psychosocial factors and pre-existing health beliefs. The aim of this review was to identify interventions which have been shown to effectively increase vaccination rates in patients with COPD. Materials and Methods: A structured search of PubMed returned 491 titles. Following title and abstract screening, seven full-text articles reporting on 6 unique interventional studies were extracted for narrative synthesis. A variety of interventions were investigated which, for the purposes of this review, were grouped into patient-focussed, clinician-focussed and mixed interventions. Results: Three papers reported findings from clinical trials (2 unique studies) and 4 papers reported findings from before-after studies. Two studies were conducted in the primary care setting, the remaining studies were conducted in secondary and tertiary care. Most studies reported both influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rates. These studies suggest that multimodal interventions, which target multiple aspects of evidence-based care and use both patient-focussed and clinician-focussed techniques, may have the greatest impact on vaccination rates in patients with COPD. Conclusions: Further, adequately powered, high quality studies are needed. It is crucial for individual institutions to monitor their own vaccination rates to determine if there is scope for performance improvement.

The design of behavioural interventions labelled as patient-mediated: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-mediated interventions (PMIs) directed at patients and/or physicians improve patient or provider behaviour and patient outcomes. However, what constitutes a PMI is not clear. This study described interventions explicitly labelled as "patient-mediated" in primary research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine, PsychINFO, HealthSTAR, Social Work Abstracts, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched from inception on 1 January 2017 for English language studies that developed or evaluated behavioural interventions referred to as "patient-mediated" or "patient mediated" in the full text. Screening and data extraction were independently duplicated. Data were extracted and summarized on study and intervention characteristics. Interventions were categorized as 1 of 4 PMI pathways.

RESULTS

Eight studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 1 observational study and 3 qualitative studies) were included. No studies explicitly defined PMI, and few PMIs were described in terms of content and format. Although 3 studies employed physician interventions, only patient interventions were considered PMIs. One study achieved positive improvement in patient behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Research is needed to generate consensus on the PMI concept, employ theory when designing or evaluating PMIs, establish the effectiveness of different types of PMIs, and understand when and how to employ PMIs alone or combined with other interventions.

Lost in translation: transferring knowledge from research to clinical practice

Using a new treatment is not an instantaneous act. There is a gap between research and practice and carefully evaluated evidence often fails to achieve widespread use. Various factors intercede along the pathway from knowledge generation to knowledge utilisation. These can hinder, or indeed facilitate, the use of research evidence in psychiatry. Knowledge translation is a discipline that attempts to identify and understand these barriers and facilitators to knowledge transfer. In this article, the terminology and key concepts of knowledge translation will be outlined, the evidence transfer pipeline described and obstacles and facilitators to uptake of evidence explored. The article also identifies sources of information on knowledge transfer. Innovative approaches designed to enhance the uptake of evidence from research, such as summaries, systematic reviews and targeted messaging, are also described.

Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) self-management interventions should be structured but personalised and often multi-component, with goals of motivating, engaging and supporting the patients to positively adapt their behaviour(s) and develop skills to better manage disease. Exacerbation action plans are considered to be a key component of COPD self-management interventions. Studies assessing these interventions show contradictory results. In this Cochrane Review, we compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that include action plans for acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) with usual care.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of COPD-specific self-management interventions that include an action plan for exacerbations of COPD compared with usual care in terms of health-related quality of life, respiratory-related hospital admissions and other health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, trials registries, and the reference lists of included studies to May 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating a self-management intervention for people with COPD published since 1995. To be eligible for inclusion, the self-management intervention included a written action plan for AECOPD and an iterative process between participant and healthcare provider(s) in which feedback was provided. We excluded disease management programmes classified as pulmonary rehabilitation or exercise classes offered in a hospital, at a rehabilitation centre, or in a community-based setting to avoid overlap with pulmonary rehabilitation as much as possible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by reaching consensus or by involving a third review author. Study authors were contacted to obtain additional information and missing outcome data where possible. When appropriate, study results were pooled using a random-effects modelling meta-analysis. The primary outcomes of the review were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and number of respiratory-related hospital admissions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies that involved 3,854 participants with COPD. The studies compared the effectiveness of COPD self-management interventions that included an action plan for AECOPD with usual care. The follow-up time ranged from two to 24 months and the content of the interventions was diverse.Over 12 months, there was a statistically significant beneficial effect of self-management interventions with action plans on HRQoL, as measured by the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, where a lower score represents better HRQoL. We found a mean difference from usual care of -2.69 points (95% CI -4.49 to -0.90; 1,582 participants; 10 studies; high-quality evidence). Intervention participants were at a statistically significant lower risk for at least one respiratory-related hospital admission compared with participants who received usual care (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.94; 3,157 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The number needed to treat to prevent one respiratory-related hospital admission over one year was 12 (95% CI 7 to 69) for participants with high baseline risk and 17 (95% CI 11 to 93) for participants with low baseline risk (based on the seven studies with the highest and lowest baseline risk respectively).There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of at least one all-cause hospital admission in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03; 2467 participants; 14 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Furthermore, we observed no statistically significant difference in the number of all-cause hospitalisation days, emergency department visits, General Practitioner visits, and dyspnoea scores as measured by the (modified) Medical Research Council questionnaire for self-management intervention participants compared to usual care participants. There was no statistically significant effect observed from self-management on the number of COPD exacerbations and no difference in all-cause mortality observed (RD 0.0019, 95% CI -0.0225 to 0.0263; 3296 participants; 16 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Exploratory analysis showed a very small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate in the self-management intervention group compared to the usual care group (RD 0.028, 95% CI 0.0049 to 0.0511; 1219 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence).Subgroup analyses showed significant improvements in HRQoL in self-management interventions with a smoking cessation programme (MD -4.98, 95% CI -7.17 to -2.78) compared to studies without a smoking cessation programme (MD -1.33, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.27, test for subgroup differences: Chi² = 6.89, df = 1, P = 0.009, I² = 85.5%). The number of behavioural change techniques clusters integrated in the self-management intervention, the duration of the intervention and adaptation of maintenance medication as part of the action plan did not affect HRQoL. Subgroup analyses did not detect any potential variables to explain differences in respiratory-related hospital admissions among studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Self-management interventions that include a COPD exacerbation action plan are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess all-cause mortality risk was observed, but exploratory analysis showed a small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate for self-management compared to usual care.For future studies, we would like to urge only using action plans together with self-management interventions that meet the requirements of the most recent COPD self-management intervention definition. To increase transparency, future study authors should provide more detailed information regarding interventions provided. This would help inform further subgroup analyses and increase the ability to provide stronger recommendations regarding effective self-management interventions that include action plans for AECOPD. For safety reasons, COPD self-management action plans should take into account comorbidities when used in the wider population of people with COPD who have comorbidities. Although we were unable to evaluate this strategy in this review, it can be expected to further increase the safety of self-management interventions. We also advise to involve Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for future COPD self-management studies.

[Perceptions of patients and health professionals about the quality of care provided to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the understanding and knowledge of patients and health professionals about factors that influence the quality of care provided in Primary Care to people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

DESIGN

Qualitative study performed between February and March 2010.

LOCATION

Primary Care Centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical and nursing professionals and patients with COPD.

METHODS

Non-probabilistic intentional sampling with representation criterion of the discourse. Two group (focus group) and 6 individual interviews were performed. The interviews were recorded, literally transcribed and interpreted by social discourse analysis.

RESULTS

Patients neither identify properly the symptomatology nor they assume the COPD importance until advanced states. The lacks of knowledge about the evolution of the disease and the impact on quality of life hinders the necessary changes. Professionals reports problems with performing spirometry. Among doctors, scepticism regarding to the effectiveness of the interventions aimed at change of behaviour is identified. The existence of Clinical Guides, the improvement of the coordination between professionals and the alignment of priorities between managers and professionals stand out as organizational factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified factors suggest the possibility of improving the health care through improved communication to motivate them to take the recommended changes and to increase the adherence to treatments. To this effect, the awareness and training of professionals, the healthcare coordination, the implementation of Clinical Guides and the use of indicators in a process of quality assessment.

Improving the uptake of systematic reviews: a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and relevance

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the barriers, facilitators and interventions that impact on systematic review uptake. The objective of this study was to identify how uptake of systematic reviews can be improved.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were included if they addressed interventions enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews. Reports in any language were included. All decisionmakers were eligible. Studies could be randomised trials, cluster-randomised trials, controlled-clinical trials and before-and-after studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched 19 databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, covering the full range of publication years from inception to December 2010. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality according to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care criteria.

RESULTS

10 studies from 11 countries, containing 12 interventions met our criteria. Settings included a hospital, a government department and a medical school. Doctors, nurses, mid-wives, patients and programme managers were targeted. Six of the studies were geared to improving knowledge and attitudes while four targeted clinical practice.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Three studies of low-to-moderate risk of bias, identified interventions that showed a statistically significant improvement: educational visits, short summaries of systematic reviews and targeted messaging. Promising interventions include e-learning, computer-based learning, inactive workshops, use of knowledge brokers and an e-registry of reviews. Juxtaposing barriers and facilitators alongside the identified interventions, it was clear that the three effective approaches addressed a wide range of barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

A limited number of studies were found for inclusion. However, the extensive literature search is one of the strengths of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted messaging, educational visits and summaries are recommended to enhance systematic review uptake. Identified promising approaches need to be developed further. New strategies are required to encompass neglected barriers and facilitators. This review addressed effectiveness and also appropriateness of knowledge uptake strategies.

Pulmonary rehabilitation: overwhelming evidence but lost in translation?

PURPOSE

This report highlights the current international gap between the availability of high-quality evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) and its low level of implementation. Key barriers are outlined, and potentially effective strategies to improve implementation are presented.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended by international guidelines as part of the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), participation in PR remains low. Physician referral to PR ranges from 3% to 16% of suitable patients. Barriers to participation include limited availability of suitable programmes and interrelated issues of referral and access. Individual patient barriers, including factors relating to comorbidities and exacerbations, perceptions of benefit, and ease of access, contribute less overall to low participation rates. Chronic care programmes that incorporate self-management support have some benefit in patients with COPD. However, the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of PR is substantial, and efforts to improve its implementation are urgently indicated.

CONCLUSION

To improve implementation, a holistic examination of the key issues influencing a patient's participation in PR is needed. Such an examination should consider the relative influences of environmental (e.g., health-service-related) factors, organizational factors (e.g., referral and intake procedures), and individual factors (e.g., patient barriers) for all participants. On the basis of these findings, policy, funding, service delivery, and other interventions to improve participation in PR can be developed and evaluated.

Providing reviews of evidence to COPD patients: controlled prospective 12-month trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel patient-held manual designed to reduce the evidence–practice gap in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The intervention manual contained summaries of research evidence. It was developed using current best practice for patient information materials and designed to cause discussion of evidence between patient and doctor. A controlled before-and-after study was employed in two similar but geographically separate regions of metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. Participants had moderate to severe COPD, with 249 included at baseline and 201 completing the study. Evidence-based COPD management was measured using an indicator with three components: rates of influenza vaccination, bone density testing, and pulmonary rehabilitation. A survey of behavioral steps leading to practice change was conducted with the trial. Analysis, by median split of socioeconomic disadvantage, showed significant difference between study arms for only one component of the indicator of evidence-based practice, enrolment in pulmonary rehabilitation and only for the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum. For both socioeconomic strata, more intervention participants than control participants reported remembering being given the information material, reading part or all, and finding it very or quite helpful. Other significant differences were restricted to the stratum of greatest socioeconomic disadvantage: reading all of the material, learning from it, referring back, and talking to a doctor about a topic from the material. Above 90% of all participants who received the manual reported reading from it, 42% reported discussing topics with a doctor, but only 10% reported treatment change attributable to the manual. We have found that people with COPD will read an evidence manual developed using current best practice. However, the study demonstrated improvement for only one of the three components of an indicator of evidence-based disease management for only the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum of participants. Future interventions should be designed to better translate reading uptake into evidence-based disease management.