The use of computer aided lung sound analysis to characterise lung sounds in a healthy population

Sem resumo disponível.publishe

Evaluation of a breathing retraining intervention to improve quality of life in asthma: quantitative process analysis of the BREATHE randomised controlled trial

Objective: Explore group differences between interventions (DVD and booklet (DVDB) versus face-to-face and booklet (F2FB), versus usual care) in the BREATHE trial of breathing retraining for asthma. Design: Quantitative process analysis exploring group expectancy, experience and practice before and after intervention delivery for the main trial. Setting: Primary care subjects: Adults with asthma (DVDB n = 261; F2FB n = 132). Main measures: Baseline - expectancy about breathing retraining; Follow-up 3, 6 and 12 months - self-efficacy, treatment experience (enjoyment of treatment, perceptions of physiotherapist, perceptions of barriers), amount of practice (weeks, days/week, times/day), continued practice; All time points - anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), asthma QoL (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire). Results: No group differences in baseline expectancy. Statistically significant results (p<0.05) indicated that: At follow-up F2FB participants perceived greater need for a physiotherapist than DVDB participants (3.43 (0.87) versus 2.15 (1.26)). F2FB participants reported greater enjoyment of core techniques (such as stomach breathing 7.42(1.67) versus 6.13 (1.99) (DVDB)). Fewer F2FB participants reported problems due to doubts (24 (22.9%) versus 90 (54.2%). F2FB participants completed more practice sessions (75.01 (46.38) versus 48.56 (44.71)). Amount of practice was not significantly related to QoL. In the DVDB arm, greater confidence in breathing retraining ability explained 3.9% of variance in QoL at 12 months. Conclusions: Adults with asthma receiving breathing retraining face-to-face report greater enjoyment and undertaking more practice than those receiving a DVD and booklet, but practice is not related to QoL. Greater confidence in ability to do breathing retraining is associated with improved QoL

Interactive digital interventions to promote self-management in adults with asthma : systematic review and meta-analysis

This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number (RP-PG- 1211–20001).Background: To identify, summarise and synthesise the evidence for using interactive digital interventions to support patient self-management of asthma, and determine their impact. Methods: Systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, DoPHER, TROPHI, Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index. The selection criteria requirement was studies of adults (16 years and over) with asthma, interventions that were interactive digital interventions and the comparator was usual care. Outcomes were change in clinical outcomes, cost effectiveness and patient-reported measures of wellbeing or quality of life. Only Randomised Controlled Trials published in peer-reviewed journals in English were eligible. Potential studies were screened and study characteristics and outcomes were extracted from eligible papers independently by two researchers. Where data allowed, meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Results: Eight papers describing 5 trials with 593 participants were included, but only three studies were eligible for inclusion for meta-analysis. Of these, two aimed to improve asthma control and the third aimed to reduce the total dose of oral prednisolone without worsening control. Analyses with data from all three studies showed no significant differences and extremely high heterogeneity for both Asthma Quality of Life (AQLQ) (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.05; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32 to -0.22: I2 96.8) and asthma control (SMD 0.21; 95 % CI -0.05 to .42; I2 = 87.4). The removal of the third study reduced heterogeneity and indicated significant improvement for both AQLQ (SMD 0.45; 95 % CI 0.13 to 0.77: I2 = 0.34) and asthma control (SMD 0.54; 95 % CI 0.22 to 0.86: I2 = 0.11). No evidence of harm was identified. Conclusion: Digital self-management interventions for adults with asthma show promise, with some evidence of small beneficial effects on asthma control. Overall, the evidence base remains weak due to the lack of large, robust trials.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Patients' experiences of breathing retraining for asthma:a qualitative process analysis of participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial

Poor symptom control and impaired quality of life are common in adults with asthma, and breathing retraining exercises may be an effective method of self-management. This study aimed to explore the experiences of participants in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial, which investigated the effectiveness of breathing retraining as a mode of asthma management. Sixteen people with asthma (11 women, 8 per group) who had taken part in the intervention arms of the BREATHE trial (breathing retraining delivered by digital versatile disc (DVD) or face-to-face sessions with a respiratory physiotherapist) took part in semi-structured telephone interviews about their experiences. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. Breathing retraining was perceived positively as a method of asthma management. Motivations for taking part included being asked, to enhance progress in research, to feel better/reduce symptoms, and to reduce medication. Participants were positive about the physiotherapist, liked having the materials tailored, found meetings motivational, and liked the DVD and booklet. The impact of breathing retraining following regular practice included increased awareness of breathing and development of new habits. Benefits of breathing retraining included increased control over breathing, reduced need for medication, feeling more relaxed, and improved health and quality of life. Problems included finding time to practice the exercises, and difficulty mastering techniques. Breathing retraining was acceptable and valued by almost all participants, and many reported improved wellbeing. Face to face physiotherapy was well received. However, some participants in the DVD group mentioned being unable to master techniques.ASTHMA: PATIENTS RECEPTIVE TO BREATHING RETRAINING: Patients with asthma taught how to change their unconscious breathing patterns generally like non-pharmacological interventions. Researchers in the UK, led by Mike Thomas from the University of Southampton, interviewed 16 people about their experiences in a trial that tested breathing retraining exercises delivered by DVD or face-to-face sessions with a respiratory physiotherapist. Overwhelmingly, trial participants reported that breathing retraining sessions gave them greater control over their symptoms, helped them relax, improved their quality of life and reduced the need for medications. Some participants who received DVD instruction said they had trouble mastering the techniques, and many in both groups found it hard to find time to practice the exercises. Overall, however, patients were positive about the experience. The authors conclude that breathing exercises are likely to be a well-received method of asthma management.</p

A feasibility trial of a digital self-management intervention ‘My Breathing Matters’ to improve asthma-related quality of life for UK primary care patients with asthma

Objective: To assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and acceptability of an asthma self-management digital intervention to improve asthma-specific quality of life in comparison with usual care. Design and setting: A two-arm feasibility RCT conducted across seven general practices in Wessex, UK. Participants: Primary care patients with asthma aged 18 years and over, with impaired asthma-specific quality of life and access to the internet. Interventions: ‘My Breathing Matters’ (MBM) is a digital asthma self-management intervention designed using theory, evidence and person-based approaches to provide tailored support for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of asthma symptoms. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the feasibility of the trial design, including recruitment, adherence and retention at follow-up (3 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes were the feasibility and effect sizes of specific trial measures including asthma-specific quality of life and asthma control. Results: Primary outcomes: 88 patients were recruited (target 80). At 3-month follow-up, two patients withdrew and six did not complete outcome measures. At 12 months, two withdrew and four did not complete outcome measures. 36/44 patients in the intervention group engaged with MBM (median of 4 logins, range 0–25, IQR 8). Consistent trends were observed to improvements in asthma-related patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of a definitive RCT that is required to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a digital asthma self-management intervention. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15698435

Digital interventions for hypertension and asthma to support patient self-management in primary care: the DIPSS research programme including two RCTs

Background: Digital interventions offer a potentially cost-effective means to support patient self-management in primary care, but evidence for the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions remains mixed. This programme focused on the potential for self-management digital interventions to improve outcomes in two common, contrasting conditions (i.e. hypertension and asthma) for which care is currently suboptimal, leading to excess deaths, illness, disability and costs for the NHS. Objectives: The overall purpose was to address the question of how digital interventions can best provide cost-effective support for patient self-management in primary care. Our aims were to develop and trial digital interventions to support patient self-management of hypertension and asthma. Through the process of planning, developing and evaluating these interventions, we also aimed to generate a better understanding of what features and methods for implementing digital interventions could make digital interventions acceptable, feasible, effective and cost-effective to integrate into primary care. Design: For the hypertension strand, we carried out systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and an unmasked randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with a health economic analysis and nested process evaluation. For the asthma strand, we carried out a systematic review of quantitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with nested process evaluation. Setting: General practices (hypertension, n = 76; asthma, n = 7) across Wessex and Thames Valley regions in Southern England. Participants: For the hypertension strand, people with uncontrolled hypertension taking one, two or three antihypertensive medications. For the asthma strand, adults with asthma and impaired asthma-related quality of life. Interventions: Our hypertension intervention (i.e. HOME BP) was a digital intervention that included motivational training for patients to self-monitor blood pressure, as well as health-care professionals to support self-management; a digital interface to send monthly readings to the health-care professional and to prompt planned medication changes when patients’ readings exceeded recommended targets for 2 consecutive months; and support for optional patient healthy behaviour change (e.g. healthy diet/weight loss, increased physical activity and reduced alcohol and salt consumption). The control group were provided with a Blood Pressure UK (London, UK) leaflet for hypertension and received routine hypertension care. Our asthma intervention (i.e. My Breathing Matters) was a digital intervention to improve the functional quality of life of primary care patients with asthma by supporting illness self-management. Motivational content intended to facilitate use of pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. medication adherence and appropriate health-care service use) and non-pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. breathing retraining, stress reduction and healthy behaviour change). The control group were given an Asthma UK (London, UK) information booklet on asthma self-management and received routine asthma care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome for the hypertension randomised controlled trial was difference between intervention and usual-care groups in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at 12 months, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target (i.e. standard, diabetic or aged &gt; 80 years), age and general practice. The primary outcome for the asthma feasibility study was the feasibility of the trial design, including recruitment, adherence, intervention engagement and retention at follow-up. Health-care utilisation data were collected via notes review. Review methods: The quantitative reviews included a meta-analysis. The qualitative review comprised a meta-ethnography. Results: A total of 622 hypertensive patients were recruited to the randomised controlled trial, and 552 (89%) were followed up at 12 months. Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the intervention group at 12 months, with a difference of –3.4 mmHg (95% confidence interval –6.1 to –0.8 mmHg), and this gave an incremental cost per unit of systolic blood pressure reduction of £11 (95% confidence interval £5 to £29). Owing to a cost difference of £402 and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference of 0.044, long-term modelling puts the incremental cost per QALY at just over £9000. The probability of being cost-effective was 66% at willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, and this was higher at higher thresholds. A total of 88 patients were recruited to the asthma feasibility trial (target n = 80; n = 44 in each arm). At 3-month follow-up, two patients withdrew and six patients did not complete outcome measures. At 12 months, two patients withdrew and four patients did not complete outcome measures. A total of 36 out of 44 patients in the intervention group engaged with My Breathing Matters [with a median of four (range 0–25) logins]