Diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed. A number of studies have evaluated the accuracy of screening tests for COPD, but their findings have not been formally summarised. We therefore sought to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of such screening tests in primary care. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for COPD confirmed by spirometry in primary care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other bibliographic databases from 1997 to 2013 for diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated 1 or more index tests in primary care among individuals aged ≥35 years with no prior diagnosis of COPD. Bivariate meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity was performed where appropriate. Methodological quality was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the QUADAS-2 tool. RESULTS: 10 studies were included. 8 assessed screening questionnaires (the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was the most evaluated, n=4), 4 assessed handheld flow meters (eg, COPD-6) and 1 assessed their combination. Among ever smokers, the CDQ (score threshold ≥19.5; n=4) had a pooled sensitivity of 64.5% (95% CI 59.9% to 68.8%) and specificity of 65.2% (52.9% to 75.8%), and handheld flow meters (n=3) had a sensitivity of 79.9% (95% CI 74.2% to 84.7%) and specificity of 84.4% (68.9% to 93.0%). Inadequate blinding between index tests and spirometry was the main risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Handheld flow meters demonstrated higher test accuracy than the CDQ for COPD screening in primary care. The choice of alternative screening tests within whole screening programmes should now be fully evaluated. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42012002074

Case finding for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care: finding the optimal approach

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality but widely underdiagnosed. This thesis explores methods to improve case finding for COPD in primary care. It includes two systematic reviews- the first evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests and showed that handheld flow meters are more accurate than the COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire. The second evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different case finding strategies and found that inviting symptomatic ever smokers for a screening assessment may be more efficient than inviting all ever smokers directly for diagnostic spirometry. The thesis then reports the development and external validation of two risk prediction models for COPD using data from electronic health records and a cluster randomised controlled trial. These models can be used to assess the risk of undiagnosed COPD to help target patients for case finding and can potentially be integrated with clinical information systems. Finally, primary care providers were interviewed to explore their views on case finding for COPD, including potential benefits and harms, as well as barriers and facilitators. This suggests that more training and support for community respiratory services may be needed in order to improve the timely diagnosis of COP

Predicting risk of COPD in primary care:development and validation of a clinical risk score

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a clinical risk score to identify patients at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using clinical factors routinely recorded in primary care. DESIGN: Case–control study of patients containing one incident COPD case to two controls matched on age, sex and general practice. Candidate risk factors were included in a conditional logistic regression model to produce a clinical score. Accuracy of the score was estimated on a separate external validation sample derived from 20 purposively selected practices. SETTING: UK general practices enrolled in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (1 January 2000 to 31 March 2006). PARTICIPANTS: Development sample included 340 practices containing 15 159 newly diagnosed COPD cases and 28 296 controls (mean age 70 years, 52% male). Validation sample included 2259 cases and 4196 controls (mean age 70 years, 50% male). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (c statistic), sensitivity and specificity in the validation practices. RESULTS: The model included four variables including smoking status, history of asthma, and lower respiratory tract infections and prescription of salbutamol in the previous 3 years. It had a high average c statistic of 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) and yielded a sensitivity of 63.2% (95% CI 63.1 to 63.3) and specificity 87.4% (95% CI 87.3 to 87.5). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors associated with COPD and routinely recorded in primary care have been used to develop and externally validate a new COPD risk score. This could be used to target patients for case finding

Effectiveness of case finding strategies for COPD in primary care:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is widely underdiagnosed, but the most effective approach for identifying these patients is unknown. AIMS: The aim of this study was to summarise and compare the effectiveness of different case finding approaches for undiagnosed COPD in primary care. METHODS: A systematic review of primary studies of any design evaluating case finding strategies for COPD in primary care among individuals aged ⩾35 years with no prior diagnosis was conducted. Medline, Embase and other bibliographic databases were searched from 1997 to 2013, and methodological quality was assessed using standard tools. Results were described and meta-analysis of the uptake and yield from different approaches was performed where there was sufficient homogeneity. RESULTS: Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 1 controlled trial and 35 uncontrolled studies were identified that assessed the identification of new cases of COPD through systematic case finding. A range of approaches were used including pre-screening with questionnaires (n=13) or handheld flow meters (n=5) or direct invitation to diagnostic spirometry (n=30). Overall, any approach identified more undiagnosed COPD compared with usual care. Targeting those at higher risk (e.g., smokers) and pre-screening (e.g., using questionnaires) is likely to increase the yield. However, studies were heterogeneous and were limited by a lack of comparison groups, inadequate reporting and diversity in the definition of COPD, which limited our ability to draw firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is extensive heterogeneity among studies evaluating case finding strategies for COPD, with few RCTs. Well-conducted RCTs comparing case finding approaches are needed to identify the most effective target population, recruitment strategy and screening tests, using a clinical definition of COPD, and addressing the limitations highlighted in this review. There is also a need to evaluate the impact of case finding on clinical care and patient outcomes

The experiences of Chinese general practitioners in communicating with people with type 2 diabetes - a focus group study

BACKGROUND: China has more ascertained cases of diabetes than any other country. Much of the care of people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in China is managed by GPs and this will increase with the implementation of health care reforms aimed at strengthening China’s primary health care system. Diabetes care requires effective communication between physicians and patients, yet little is known about this area in China. We aimed to explore the experiences of Chinese GPs in communicating with diabetes patients and how this may relate to communication skills training. METHODS: Focus groups with Chinese GPs were undertaken. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 15 GPs from Guangzhou city in China. All data were audio-recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis using the Framework Method was applied to code the data and identify themes. RESULTS: Seven males and 8 females from 12 general practices attended 4 focus groups with a mean age of 37.6 years and 7.5 years’ work experience. Four major themes were identified: diversity in diabetic patients, communication with patients, patient-doctor relationship, and communication skills training. GPs reported facing a wide variety of diabetes patients in their daily practice. They believed insufficient knowledge and misunderstanding of diabetes was common among patients. They highlighted several challenges in communicating with diabetes patients, such as insufficient consultation time, poor communication regarding blood glucose monitoring and misunderstanding the risk of complications. They used terms such as “blind spot” or “not on the same channel” to describe gaps in their patients’ understanding of diabetes and its management, and cited this as a cause of ineffective patient-doctor communication. Mutual understanding of diabetes was perceived to be an important factor towards building positive patient-doctor relationships. Although GPs believed communication skills training was necessary, they reported rarely received this. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese GPs reported facing challenges in communicating with diabetes patients. Some of these were perceived as being due to the patients themselves, others were attributed to system constraints, and some were seen as related to a lack of clinician training. The study identified key issues for the development of primary care-based management of diabetes in China, and for developing appropriate communication skills training programs for the primary care workforce. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01506-9

Perceptions on artificial intelligence-based decision making for coexisting multiple long-term health conditions: A protocol for a qualitative study with patients and healthcare professionals

IntroductionCoexisting multiple health conditions is common among older people, a population that is increasing globally. The potential for polypharmacy, adverse events, drug interactions and causing additional health conditions complicates prescribing decisions for these patients. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated decision-making tools may help guide clinical decisions in the context of multiple health conditions, by determining which of multiple medication options is best. This study aims to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of AI in the management of multiple health conditions.Methods and analysis A qualitative study will be conducted using semi-structured interviews. Adults (≥18 years) with multiple health conditions living in the West Midlands of England and HCPs with experience in caring for patients with multiple health conditions will be eligible and purposively sampled. Patients will be identified from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum; CPRD will contact general practitioners who will in turn, send a letter to patients inviting them to take part. Eligible HCPs will be recruited through British healthcare professional bodies and known contacts. Up to 30 patients and 30 HCPs will be recruited, until data saturation is achieved. Interviews will be in-person or virtual, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The topic guide was designed to explore participants’ attitudes towards AI-informed clinical decision-making to augment clinician-directed decision-making, the perceived advantages and disadvantages of both methods and attitudes toward risk management. Case vignettes comprising a common decision pathway for patients with multiple health conditions will be presented during each interview to invite participants’ opinions on how their experiences compare. Data will be analysed thematically using the Framework method.Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 22/SC/0210). Written informed consent or verbal consent will be obtained prior to each interview. The findings from this study will be disseminated through peer- reviewed publications, conferences and lay summaries.<br/

Information standards for recording alcohol use in electronic health records::Findings from a national consultation

Abstract Background Alcohol misuse is an important cause of premature disability and death. While clinicians are recommended to ask patients about alcohol use and provide brief interventions and specialist referral, this is poorly implemented in routine practice. We undertook a national consultation to ascertain the appropriateness of proposed standards for recording information about alcohol use in electronic health records (EHRs) in the UK and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to their implementation in practice. Methods A wide range of stakeholders in the UK were consulted about the appropriateness of proposed information standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs via a multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshop and online survey. Responses to the survey were thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results Thirty-one stakeholders participated in the workshop and 100 in the online survey. This included patients and carers, healthcare professionals, researchers, public health specialists, informaticians, and clinical information system suppliers. There was broad consensus that the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questionnaires were appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs but that the standards should also address interventions for alcohol misuse. Stakeholders reported a number of factors that might influence implementation of the standards, including having clear care pathways and an implementation guide, sharing information about alcohol use between health service providers, adequately resourcing the implementation process, integrating alcohol screening with existing clinical pathways, having good clinical information systems and IT infrastructure, providing financial incentives, having sufficient training for healthcare workers, and clinical leadership and engagement. Implementation of the standards would need to ensure patients are not stigmatised and that patient confidentiality is robustly maintained. Conclusions A wide range of stakeholders agreed that use of AUDIT-C and AUDIT are appropriate standards for recording alcohol use in EHRs in addition to recording interventions for alcohol misuse. The findings of this consultation will be used to develop an appropriate information model and implementation guide. Further research is needed to pilot the standards in primary and secondary care