ABC-tool reinvented: development of a disease-specific 'Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool' for multiple chronic conditions

BACKGROUND: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates self-management is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice. METHODS: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations. RESULTS: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations

Low-smoke chulha in Indian slums: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background Biomass fuel is used as a primary cooking source by more than half of the world’s population, contributing to a high burden of disease. Although cleaner fuels are available, some households continue using solid fuels because of financial constraints and absence of infrastructure, especially in non-notified slums. The present study documents a randomised controlled study investigating the efficacy of improved cookstove on the personal exposure to air pollution and the respiratory health of women and children in an Indian slum. The improved cookstove was based on co-creation of a low-smoke chulha with local communities in order to support adaption and sustained uptake. Methods The study will be conducted in a non-notified slum called Ashrayanagar in Bangalore, India. The study design will be a 1:1 randomised controlled intervention trial, including 250 households. The intervention group will receive an improved cookstove (low-smoke chulha) and the control group will continue using either the traditional cookstove (chulha) or a combination of the traditional stove and the kerosene/diesel stove. Follow-up time is 1 year. Outcomes include change in lung function (FEV1/FVC), incidence of pneumonia, change in personal PM2.5 and CO exposure, incidence of respiratory symptoms (cough, phlegm, wheeze and shortness of breath), prevalence of other related symptoms (headache and burning eyes), change in behaviour and adoption of the stove. Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Indian Institute of Public Health Hyderabad- Bengaluru Campus. Discussion The findings from this study aim to provide insight into the effects of improved cookstoves in urban slums. Results can give evidence for the decrease of indoor air pollution and the improvement of respiratory health for children and women. Trial registration The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov on 21 June 2016 with the identifier NCT02821650; A Study to Test the Impact of an Improved Chulha on the Respiratory Health of Women and Children in Indian Slums

Factors critical to implementation success of cleaner cooking interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for an umbrella review

Introduction Over a third of the world’s population relies on solid fuels as their primary energy source. These fuels have damaging effects on health, air quality and forest resources. Interventions to promote access to cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels have existed for decades. However, the adoption by local communities has largely failed, which led to a waste of resources and suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this umbrella review is to identify factors that determine implementation success for cleaner cooking interventions in low-resource settings and weigh their level of confidence in the evidence.Methods and analysis We identified systematic and narrative reviews examining factors that influence the acquisition, initial adoption or sustained use of cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels at any scale by a literature search in PubMed, Embase, Global Health Database, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Emcare, Web of Science and CINAHL, without date or language restrictions. The search was conducted on 23 October 2017 and updated on 10 July 2019. Reviews based on qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies were included and will be appraised using the Meta Quality Appraisal Tool combined with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Data will be extracted and factors affecting implementation will be coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool will be used to determine the level of confidence in the coded factors. Two researchers will independently conduct these steps.Ethics and dissemination This umbrella review does not require the approval of an ethical review board. Study results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The outcomes will be converted into two practical tools: one for cleaner solid fuel cookstoves and one for clean fuels. These tools can guide the development of evidence-based implementation strategies for cleaner cooking interventions in low-income and middle-income countries to improve implementation success. These tools should be pilot-tested and promoted among regional and global initiatives.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018088687

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study

Introduction The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure.Methods and analysis The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients’ activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383)

Headroom Analysis for Early Economic Evaluation:A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES: The headroom analysis is an early economic evaluation that quantifies the highest price at which an intervention may still be cost effective. Currently, there is no comprehensive review on how it is applied. This study investigated the application of the headroom analysis, specifically (1) how the headroom analysis is framed (2) the analytical approach and sources of evidence used, and (3) how expert judgement is used and reported. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, and Google Scholar on 28 April 2022. Studies were eligible if they reported an application of the headroom analysis. Data were presented in tabular form and summarised descriptively. RESULTS: We identified 42 relevant papers. The headroom analysis was applied to medicines (29%), diagnostic or screening tests (29%), procedures, programmes and systems (21%), medical devices (19%), and a combined test and device (2%). All studies used model-based analyses, with 40% using simple models and 60% using more comprehensive models. Thirty-three percent of the studies assumed perfect effectiveness of the health technology, while 67% adopted realistic assumptions. Ten percent of the studies calculated an effectiveness-seeking headroom instead of a cost-seeking headroom. Expert judgement was used in 71% of the studies; 23 studies (55%) used expert opinion, 6 studies (14%) used expert elicitation, and 1 study (2%) used both. CONCLUSIONS: Because the application of the headroom analysis varies considerably, we recommend its appropriate use and clear reporting of analytical approaches, level of evidence available, and the use of expert judgement