Family caregivers of people who have intellectual/developmental disabilities and asthma: Caregiver knowledge of asthma self‐management concepts—A pilot study

BackgroundPeople who have an intellectual or developmental disability (IDD) and asthma are at greater risk of poor health outcomes. They often require assistance from caregivers when managing their medicines. The objective of this pilot study was to assess the level of understanding of asthma self‐management concepts of family caregivers who provide assistance to people who IDD and asthma. Results will inform future needs assessment and intervention studies.Materials and MethodsNineteen caregivers of people who have asthma and IDD completed a mailed survey. The survey included scales to measure asthma self‐management concepts, inhaler technique knowledge, medication adherence and control of asthma. The caregivers were instructed to complete most of the scales with reference to the person with IDD.ResultsMost caregivers had acceptable health literacy, but had low scores on the asthma self‐management and inhaler technique tests. The most frequently cited barriers to controlling asthma were inadequate caregiver and patient education about the illness as well as knowing and avoiding asthma triggers. The most frequently cited barriers to medication management were knowing inhaler technique, knowledge of medication and forgetting to use medication. Asthma was controlled in 63.2% of patients, while almost 75% of patients were considered nonadherent to controller therapy.ConclusionsMost caregivers had inadequate understanding of asthma self‐management as well as inhaler technique despite having high health literacy. Improving caregiver and patient knowledge and skills may lead to better asthma control.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146473/1/bld12223.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/146473/2/bld12223_am.pd

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

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for adults and adolescents with asthma.

BACKGROUND: People with asthma have a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression than the general population. This is associated with poorer asthma control, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) may be a way to improve the quality of life of people with asthma by addressing associated psychological issues, which may lead to a lower risk of exacerbations and better asthma control. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of CBT for asthma compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). We also searched reference lists of all primary studies and review articles and contacted authors for unpublished data. The most recent searches were conducted in August 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any cognitive behavioural intervention to usual care or no intervention. We included studies of adults or adolescents with asthma, with or without comorbid anxiety or depression. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors independently screened the search results, extracted data, and assessed included studies for risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMD) where scales varied across studies, all using a random-effects model. The primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We rated all outcomes using GRADE and presented our confidence in the results in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs involving 407 adults with asthma in this review; no studies included adolescents under 18. Study size ranged from 10 to 94 (median 40), and mean age ranged from 39 to 53. Study populations generally had persistent asthma, but severity and diagnostic measures varied. Three studies recruited participants with psychological symptomatology, although with different criteria. Interventions ranged from 4 to 15 sessions, and primary measurements were taken at a mean of 3 months (range 1.2 to 12 months).Participants given CBT had improved scores on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) (MD 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.93; participants = 214; studies = 6; I(2) = 53%) and on measures of asthma control (SMD -0.98, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.20; participants = 95; studies = 3; I(2) = 68%) compared to people getting usual care. The AQLQ effect appeared to be sustained up to a year after treatment, but due to its low quality this evidence must be interpreted with caution. As asthma exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids were not consistently reported, we could not perform a meta-analysis.Anxiety scores were difficult to pool but showed a benefit of CBT compared with usual care (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.03), although this depended on the analysis used. The confidence intervals for the effect on depression scales included no difference between CBT and usual care when measured as change from baseline (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.70 to 0.05) or endpoint scores (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.05); the same was true for medication adherence (MD -1.40, 95% CI -2.94 to 0.14; participants = 23; studies = 1; I(2) = 0%).Subgroup analyses conducted on the AQLQ outcome did not suggest a clear difference between individual and group CBT, baseline psychological status, or CBT model. The small number of studies and the variation between their designs, populations, and other intervention characteristics limited the conclusions that could be drawn about these possibly moderating factors.The inability to blind participants and investigators to group allocation introduced significant potential bias, and overall we had low confidence in the evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For adults with persistent asthma, CBT may improve quality of life, asthma control, and anxiety levels compared with usual care. Risks of bias, imprecision of effects, and inconsistency between results reduced our confidence in the results to low, and evidence was lacking regarding the effect of CBT on asthma exacerbations, unscheduled contacts, depression, and medication adherence. There was much variation between studies in how CBT was delivered and what constituted usual care, meaning the most optimal method of CBT delivery, format, and target population requires further investigation. There is currently no evidence for the use of CBT in adolescents with asthma

Nordic consensus report on asthma management

AbstractThe work with the Nordic consensus report on asthma management started some years ago. The Nordic countries have common socioeconomic conditions. We acknowledge the international as well as other European guidelines providing valuable recommendations. Nevertheless, we felt the need to combine the common Nordic experiences in order to have a local statement of asthma and asthma care, based upon Nordic clinical science and tradition. The work has been rewarding and we acknowledge many valuable contributions from paediatricians, allergologists and lung physicians in all Nordic countries. The response has so far been positive and we feel that the present material reflects the main opinion of Nordic physicians taking care of asthma patients of all ages. However, the asthma and allergy research field is rapidly developing. Thus, this document should merely be regarded as a time-limited contribution to the continuing scientific discussion of this fascinating field

Chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma (intervention Review)

BACKGROUND: The burden of asthma on patients and healthcare systems is substantial. Interventions have been developed to overcome difficulties in asthma management. These include chronic disease management programmes, which are more than simple patient education, encompassing a set of coherent interventions that centre on the patients' needs, encouraging the co-ordination and integration of health services provided by a variety of healthcare professionals, and emphasising patient self-management as well as patient education. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations), EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched up to June 2014. We also handsearched selected journals from 2000 to 2012 and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies comparing chronic disease management programmes with usual care in adults over 16 years of age with a diagnosis of asthma. The chronic disease management programmes had to satisfy at least the following five criteria: an organisational component targeting patients; an organisational component targeting healthcare professionals or the healthcare system, or both; patient education or self-management support, or both; active involvement of two or more healthcare professionals in patient care; a minimum duration of three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: After an initial screen of the titles, two review authors working independently assessed the studies for eligibility and study quality; they also extracted the data. We contacted authors to obtain missing information and additional data, where necessary. We pooled results using the random-effects model and reported the pooled mean or standardised mean differences (SMDs). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 20 studies including 81,746 patients (median 129.5) were included in this review, with a follow-up ranging from 3 to more than 12 months. Patients' mean age was 42.5 years, 60% were female, and their asthma was mostly rated as moderate to severe. Overall the studies were of moderate to low methodological quality, because of limitations in their design and the wide confidence intervals for certain results.Compared with usual care, chronic disease management programmes resulted in improvements in asthma-specific quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.37), asthma severity scores (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30), and lung function tests (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30). The data for improvement in self-efficacy scores were inconclusive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.11). Results on hospitalisations and emergency department or unscheduled visits could not be combined in a meta-analysis because the data were too heterogeneous; results from the individual studies were inconclusive overall. Only a few studies reported results on asthma exacerbations, days off work or school, use of an action plan, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analyses could not be performed for these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate to low quality evidence that chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma can improve asthma-specific quality of life, asthma severity, and lung function tests. Overall, these results provide encouraging evidence of the potential effectiveness of these programmes in adults with asthma when compared with usual care. However, the optimal composition of asthma chronic disease management programmes and their added value, compared with education or self-management alone that is usually offered to patients with asthma, need further investigation

CHOICE: Choosing Health Options In Chronic Care Emergencies

Background Over 70% of the health-care budget in England is spent on the care of people with long-term conditions (LTCs), and a major cost component is unscheduled health care. Psychological morbidity is high in people with LTCs and is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including increased mortality, poorer physical health outcomes, increased health costs and service utilisation. Objectives The aim of this programme of research was to examine the relationship between psychological morbidity and use of unscheduled care in people with LTCs, and to develop a psychosocial intervention that would have the potential to reduce unscheduled care use. We focused largely on emergency hospital admissions (EHAs) and attendances at emergency departments (EDs). Design A three-phase mixed-methods study. Research methods included systematic reviews; a longitudinal prospective cohort study in primary care to identify people with LTCs at risk of EHA or ED admission; a replication study in primary care using routinely collected data; an exploratory and feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care; and qualitative studies to identify personal reasons for the use of unscheduled care and factors in routine consultations in primary care that may influence health-care use. People with lived experience of LTCs worked closely with the research team. Setting Primary care. Manchester and London. Participants People aged ≥ 18 years with at least one of four common LTCs: asthma, coronary heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes. Participants also included health-care staff. Results Evidence synthesis suggested that depression, but not anxiety, is a predictor of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, and low-intensity complex interventions reduce unscheduled care use in people with asthma and COPD. The results of the prospective study were that depression, not having a partner and life stressors, in addition to prior use of unscheduled care, severity of illness and multimorbidity, were independent predictors of EHA and ED admission. Approximately half of the cost of health care for people with LTCs was accounted for by use of unscheduled care. The results of the replication study, carried out in London, broadly supported our findings for risk of ED attendances, but not EHAs. This was most likely due to low rates of detection of depression in general practitioner (GP) data sets. Qualitative work showed that patients were reluctant to use unscheduled care, deciding to do so when they perceived a serious and urgent need for care, and following previous experience that unscheduled care had successfully and unquestioningly met similar needs in the past. In general, emergency and primary care doctors did not regard unscheduled care as problematic. We found there are missed opportunities to identify and discuss psychosocial issues during routine consultations in primary care due to the ‘overmechanisation’ of routine health-care reviews. The feasibility trial examined two levels of an intervention for people with COPD: we tried to improve the way in which practices manage patients with COPD and developed a targeted psychosocial treatment for patients at risk of using unscheduled care. The former had low acceptability, whereas the latter had high acceptability. Exploratory health economic analyses suggested that the practice-level intervention would be unlikely to be cost-effective, limiting the value of detailed health economic modelling. Limitations The findings of this programme may not apply to all people with LTCs. It was conducted in an area of high social deprivation, which may limit the generalisability to more affluent areas. The response rate to the prospective longitudinal study was low. The feasibility trial focused solely on people with COPD. Conclusions Prior use of unscheduled care is the most powerful predictor of unscheduled care use in people with LTCs. However, psychosocial factors, particularly depression, are important additional predictors of use of unscheduled care in patients with LTCs, independent of severity and multimorbidity. Patients and health-care practitioners are unaware that psychosocial factors influence health-care use, and such factors are rarely acknowledged or addressed in consultations or discussions about use of unscheduled care. A targeted patient intervention for people with LTCs and comorbid depression has shown high levels of acceptability when delivered in a primary care context. An intervention at the level of the GP practice showed little evidence of acceptability or cost-effectiveness. Future work The potential benefits of case-finding for depression in patients with LTCs in primary care need to be evaluated, in addition to further evaluation of the targeted patient intervention