Psychological interventions in asthma

Asthma is a multifactorial chronic respiratory disease characterised by recurrent episodes of airway obstruction. The current management of asthma focuses principally on pharmacological treatments, which have a strong evidence base underlying their use. However, in clinical practice, poor symptom control remains a common problem for patients with asthma. Living with asthma has been linked with psychological co-morbidity including anxiety, depression, panic attacks and behavioural factors such as poor adherence and suboptimal self-management. Psychological disorders have a higher-than-expected prevalence in patients with difficult-to-control asthma. As psychological considerations play an important role in the management of people with asthma, it is not surprising that many psychological therapies have been applied in the management of asthma. There are case reports which support their use as an adjunct to pharmacological therapy in selected individuals, and in some clinical trials, benefit is demonstrated, but the evidence is not consistent. When findings are quantitatively synthesised in meta-analyses, no firm conclusions are able to be drawn and no guidelines recommend psychological interventions. These inconsistencies in findings may in part be due to poor study design, the combining of results of studies using different interventions and the diversity of ways patient benefit is assessed. Despite this weak evidence base, the rationale for psychological therapies is plausible, and this therapeutic modality is appealing to both patients and their clinicians as an adjunct to conventional pharmacological treatments. What are urgently required are rigorous evaluations of psychological therapies in asthma, on a par to the quality of pharmaceutical trials. From this evidence base, we can then determine which interventions are beneficial for our patients with asthma management and more specifically which psychological therapy is best suited for each patient

The elderly in the psychiatric emergency service (PES); a descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The impact of an aging population on the psychiatric emergency service (PES) has not been fully ascertained. Cognitive dysfunctions aside, many DSM-IV disorders may have a lower prevalence in the elderly, who appear to be underrepresented in the PES. We therefore attempted to more precisely assess their patterns of PES use and their clinical and demographic characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Close to 30,000 visits to a general hospital PES (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) were acquired between 1990 and 2004 and pooled with over 17,000 visits acquired using the same methodology at three other services in Quebec between 2002 and 2004.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The median age of PES patients increased over time. However, the proportion of yearly visits attributable to the elderly (compared to those under 65) showed no consistent increase during the observation period. The pattern of return visits (two to three, four to ten, eleven or more) did not differ from that of patients under 65, although the latter made a greater number of total return visits per patient. The elderly were more often women (62%), widowed (28%), came to the PES accompanied (42%) and reported « illness » as an important stressor (29%). About 39% were referred for depression or anxiety. They were less violent (10%) upon their arrival. Affective disorders predominated in the diagnostic profile, they were less co-morbid and more likely admitted than patients under 65.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although no proportional increase in PES use over time was found the elderly do possess distinct characteristics potentially useful in PES resource planning so as to better serve this increasingly important segment of the general population.</p

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.</p

Psycho-educational interventions for adults with severe or difficult asthma: a systematic review.

types: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; ReviewThis is the author's version of the work that was accepted for publication in the Journal of Asthma. The final version can be accessed via the DOI in this record.Research highlights psychosocial factors associated with adverse asthma events. This systematic review therefore examined whether psycho-educational interventions improve health and self-management outcomes in adults with severe or difficult asthma. Seventeen controlled studies were included. Characteristics and content of interventions varied even within broad types. Study quality was generally poor and several studies were small. Any positive effects observed from qualitative and quantitative syntheses were mainly short term and, in planned subgroup analyses (involving < 5 trials), effects on hospitalizations, quality of life, and psychological morbidity in patients with severe asthma did not extend to those in whom multiple factors complicate management.UK NHS Health Technology Assessment Programm

Effect of an Education Programme for South Asians with Asthma and Their Clinicians: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (OEDIPUS).

BACKGROUND: People with asthma from ethnic minority groups experience significant morbidity. Culturally-specific interventions to reduce asthma morbidity are rare. We tested the hypothesis that a culturally-specific education programme, adapted from promising theory-based interventions developed in the USA, would reduce unscheduled care for South Asians with asthma in the UK. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial, set in two east London boroughs. 105 of 107 eligible general practices were randomised to usual care or the education programme. Participants were south Asians with asthma aged 3 years and older with recent unscheduled care. The programme had two components: the Physician Asthma Care Education (PACE) programme and the Chronic Disease Self Management Programme (CDSMP), targeted at clinicians and patients with asthma respectively. Both were culturally adapted for south Asians with asthma. Specialist nurses, and primary care teams from intervention practices were trained using the PACE programme. South Asian participants attended an outpatient appointment; those registered with intervention practices received self-management training from PACE-trained specialist nurses, a follow-up appointment with PACE-trained primary care practices, and an invitation to attend the CDSMP. Patients from control practices received usual care. Primary outcome was unscheduled care. FINDINGS: 375 south Asians with asthma from 84 general practices took part, 183 registered with intervention practices and 192 with control practices. Primary outcome data were available for 358/375 (95.5%) of participants. The intervention had no effect on time to first unscheduled attendance for asthma (Adjusted Hazard Ratio AHR = 1.19 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53). Time to first review in primary care was reduced (AHR = 2.22, (1.67 to 2.95). Asthma-related quality of life and self-efficacy were improved at 3 months (adjusted mean difference -2.56, (-3.89 to -1.24); 0.44, (0.05 to 0.82) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-component education programme adapted for south Asians with asthma did not reduce unscheduled care but did improve follow-up in primary care, self-efficacy and quality of life. More effective interventions are needed for south Asians with asthma

A prospective study of mental health care for comorbid depressed mood in older adults with painful osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comorbid depression is common among adults with painful osteoarthritis (OA). We evaluated the relationship between depressed mood and receipt of mental health (MH) care services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a cohort with OA, annual interviews assessed comorbidity, arthritis severity, and MH (SF-36 mental health score). Surveys were linked to administrative health databases to identify mental health-related visits to physicians in the two years following the baseline interview (1996-98). Prescriptions for anti-depressants were ascertained for participants aged 65+ years (eligible for drug benefits). The relationship between MH scores and MH-related physician visits was assessed using zero-inflated negative binomial regression, adjusting for confounders. For those aged 65+ years, logistic regression examined the probability of receiving <it>any </it>MH-related care (physician visit or anti-depressant prescription).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Analyses were based on 2,005 (90.1%) individuals (mean age 70.8 years). Of 576 (28.7%) with probable depression (MH score < 60/100), 42.5% experienced one or more MH-related physician visits during follow-up. The likelihood of a physician visit was associated with sex (adjusted OR women vs. men = 5.87, p = 0.005) and MH score (adjusted OR per 10-point decrease in MH score = 1.63, p = 0.003). Among those aged 65+, 56.7% with probable depression received <it>any </it>MH care. The likelihood of receiving <it>any </it>MH care exhibited a significant interaction between MH score and self-reported health status (p = 0.0009); with good general health, worsening MH was associated with increased likelihood of MH care; as general health declined, this effect was attenuated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Among older adults with painful OA, more than one-quarter had depressed mood, but almost half received no mental health care, suggesting a care gap.</p

‘No Time to be Lost!’: Ethical Considerations on Consent for Inclusion in Emergency Pharmacological Research in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the European Union

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) remains a major cause of death and disability afflicting mostly young adult males and elderly people, resulting in high economic costs to society. Therapeutic approaches focus on reducing the risk on secondary brain injury. Specific ethical issues pertaining in clinical testing of pharmacological neuroprotective agents in TBI include the emergency nature of the research, the incapacity of the patients to informed consent before inclusion, short therapeutic time windows, and a risk-benefit ratio based on concept that in relation to the severity of the trauma, significant adverse side effects may be acceptable for possible beneficial treatments. Randomized controlled phase III trials investigating the safety and efficacy of agents in TBI with promising benefit, conducted in acute emergency situations with short therapeutic time windows, should allow randomization under deferred consent or waiver of consent. Making progress in knowledge of treatment in acute neurological and other intensive care conditions is only possible if national regulations and legislations allow waiver of consent or deferred consent for clinical trials

Clinical research without consent in adults in the emergency setting: a review of patient and public views

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In emergency research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic. Research to develop and improve treatments for patients admitted to hospital with life-threatening and debilitating conditions is much needed yet the issue of research without consent (RWC) raises concerns about unethical practices and the loss of individual autonomy. Consistent with the policy and practice turn towards greater patient and public involvement in health care decisions, in the US, Canada and EU, guidelines and legislation implemented to protect patients and facilitate acute research with adults who are unable to give consent have been developed with little involvement of the lay public. This paper reviews research examining public opinion regarding RWC for research in emergency situations, and whether the rules and regulations permitting research of this kind are in accordance with the views of those who ultimately may be the most affected.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Seven electronic databases were searched: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Philosopher's Index, Age Info, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science. Only those articles pertaining to the views of the public in the US, Canada and EU member states were included. Opinion pieces and those not published in English were excluded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Considering the wealth of literature on the perspectives of professionals, there was relatively little information about public attitudes. Twelve studies employing a range of research methods were identified. In five of the six questionnaire surveys around half the sample did <it>not </it>agree generally with RWC, though paradoxically, a higher percentage would <it>personally </it>take part in such a study. Unfortunately most of the studies were not designed to investigate individuals' views in any depth. There also appears to be a level of mistrust of medical research and some patients were more likely to accept an experimental treatment 'outside' of a research protocol.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There are too few data to evaluate whether the rules and regulations permitting RWC protects – or is acceptable to – the public. However, any attempts to engage the public should take place in the context of findings from further basic research to attend to the apparently paradoxical findings of some of the current surveys.</p

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes