Primary care based clinics for asthma

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

Nurse versus physician-led care for the management of asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is the most common chronic disease in childhood and prevalence is also high in adulthood, thereby placing a considerable burden on healthcare resources. Therefore, effective asthma management is important to reduce morbidity and to optimise utilisation of healthcare facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effectiveness of nurse-led asthma care provided by a specialised asthma nurse, a nurse practitioner, a physician assistant or an otherwise specifically trained nursing professional, working relatively independently from a physician, compared to traditional care provided by a physician. Our scope included all outpatient care for asthma, both in primary care and in hospital settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive search of databases including The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify trials up to August 2012. Bibliographies of relevant papers were searched, and handsearching of relevant publications was undertaken to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing nurse-led care versus physician-led care in asthma for the same aspect of asthma care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies on 588 adults and children were included concerning nurse-led care versus physician-led care. One study included 154 patients with uncontrolled asthma, while the other four studies including 434 patients with controlled or partly controlled asthma. The studies were of good methodological quality (although it is not possible to blind people giving or receiving the intervention to which group they are in). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of asthma exacerbations and asthma severity after treatment (duration of follow-up from six months to two years). Only one study had healthcare costs as an outcome parameter, no statistical differences were found. Although not a primary outcome, quality of life is a patient-important outcome and in the three trials on 380 subjects that reported on this outcome, there was no statistically significant difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.23 to 0.17).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference between nurse-led care for patients with asthma compared to physician-led care for the outcomes assessed. Based on the relatively small number of studies in this review, nurse-led care may be appropriate in patients with well-controlled asthma. More studies in varied settings and among people with varying levels of asthma control are needed with data on adverse events and health-care costs.

Perceptions and Practices of Adults With Asthma

This article describes a qualitative study that investigated the experiences, attitudes, and opinions of adults with asthma regarding self-managing their disease. Focus groups were conducted with 22 adults living in metropolitan and regional New South Wales, Australia. Key findings were that the perceived stigma of asthma, the need for social support, and the need for “asthma-friendly general practitioners” concerned participants more than formal self-management procedures such as written Asthma Action Plans and medication regimes. Social cognitive theory was used to explain the fluid relationship between persons with asthma, their environment, and their behavior in relation to self-management strategies and in identifying patient-centered approaches. This qualitative research suggests that asthma is viewed as a specific, individualized condition best managed from the perspective of patients’ disease experience and environmental context and not one that is appropriately represented by collective, generic self-management recommendations. The authors’ findings suggest that self-management outcomes can be improved by recognizing the variance in self-efficacy levels between individuals and tailoring environmental and social support strategies around these.

Primary care based clinics for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is defined as the presence of variable airflow obstruction with symptoms (more than one of wheeze, breathlessness, chest tightness, cough). It is becoming increasingly common worldwide and this is especially true in higher income countries. In several of these countries there has been a move towards delivery of asthma care via primary care based asthma clinics. Such clinics deliver proactive asthma care sited within primary care, via regular, dedicated sessions which are usually nurse led and doctor supported. They include organised recall of patients on an asthma register and care usually comprises education, symptom review and guideline-based management. Despite the proliferation of such clinics, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom (UK), there is a paucity of evidence to support their use. This review sets out to look at the evidence for the effectiveness of asthma clinics.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of organised asthma care delivered via primary care based asthma clinics.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (last search December 2011) and reviewed reference lists of all primary studies for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of primary care based asthma clinics with a parallel group design, where clinics took place within dedicated time slots and included face-to-face interaction with doctor or nurse and control groups received usual clinical practice care by a general practitioner.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and conducted all data extraction and analysis. All disagreements were resolved by discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of three studies involving 466 participants were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the asthma clinic group and the control group for most outcomes (primary outcomes: asthma exacerbations leading to hospitalisation or accident and emergency (A&E) visit, use of reliever and preventer medication, quality of life; secondary outcomes: symptoms, time lost from work and withdrawals from the intervention or usual care). However, the confidence intervals were wide for all outcomes and there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies for both A&E visits and time lost from work. One study (101 patients) looked at nocturnal awakenings due to asthma and found a statistically significant reduction in the number of patients reporting this symptom in the asthma clinic group compared to the usual care group (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.77). There were no studies looking at the secondary outcome of exacerbations requiring oral steroids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence of efficacy for primary care based asthma clinics, and firm conclusions cannot be formed until more good quality trials have been carried out.

Public health interventions for asthma: an umbrella review, 1990-2010

CONTEXT

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease increasingly prevalent in the U.S., particularly among children and certain minority groups. This umbrella review sought to assess and summarize existing systematic reviews of asthma-related interventions that might be carried out or supported by state or community asthma control programs, and to identify gaps in knowledge.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Eleven databases were searched through September 2010, using terms related to four concepts: asthma, review, intervention, and NOT medication. Reviews of the effectiveness of medications, medical procedures, complementary and alternative medicine, psychological interventions, family therapy, and nutrients or nutritional supplements were excluded. Two coders screened each record and extracted data from the included reviews.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Data analysis was conducted from May to December 2010. Of 42 included reviews, 19 assessed the effectiveness of education and/or self-management, nine the reduction of indoor triggers, nine interventions to improve the provision of health care, and five examined other interventions. Several reviews found consistent evidence of effectiveness for self-management education, and one review determined that comprehensive home-based interventions including the reduction of multiple indoor asthma triggers are effective for children. Other reviews found limited or insufficient evidence because of study limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

State or community asthma control programs should prioritize (1) implementing interventions for which the present review found evidence of effectiveness and (2) evaluating promising interventions that have not yet been adequately assessed.

Consumer-oriented interventions for evidence-based prescribing and medicines use: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Numerous systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, but this research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of reviews on consumers' medicines use also varies widely. Such differences create challenges for decision makers seeking review-level evidence to inform decisions about medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote evidence-based prescribing for, and medicines use, by consumers. We sought evidence on the effects on health and other outcomes for healthcare consumers, professionals and services.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching both databases from start date to Issue 3 2008. We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. Standardised forms were used to extract data, and reviews were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR instrument. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and a further synthesis step was used to give bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors selected reviews, extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 reviews (18 Cochrane, 19 non-Cochrane), of varied methodological quality.Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation, skills acquisition and information provision. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most commonly reported outcome, but others such as clinical (health and wellbeing), service use and knowledge outcomes were also reported. Reviews rarely reported adverse events or harms, and the evidence was sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.Promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines use outcomes (eg adverse events, knowledge) included self-monitoring and self-management, simplified dosing and interventions directly involving pharmacists. Other strategies showed promise in relation to adherence but their effects were less consistent. These included reminders; education combined with self-management skills training, counselling or support; financial incentives; and lay health worker interventions.No interventions were effective to improve all medicines use outcomes across all diseases, populations or settings. For some interventions, such as information or education provided alone, the evidence suggests ineffectiveness; for many others there is insufficient evidence to determine effects on medicines use outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform these decisions and also to consider the range of interventions available; while researchers and funders can use this overview to determine where research is needed. However, the limitations of the literature relating to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and specific populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered.

An integrative review of systematic reviews related to the management of breathlessness in respiratory illnesses

BACKGROUND

Breathlessness is a debilitating and distressing symptom in a wide variety of diseases and still a difficult symptom to manage. An integrative review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in non-malignant disease was undertaken to identify the current state of clinical understanding of the management of breathlessness and highlight promising interventions that merit further investigation.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were identified via electronic databases between July 2007 and September 2009. Reviews were included within the study if they reported research on adult participants using either a measure of breathlessness or some other measure of respiratory symptoms.

RESULTS

In total 219 systematic reviews were identified and 153 included within the final review, of these 59 addressed non-pharmacological interventions and 94 addressed pharmacological interventions. The reviews covered in excess of 2000 trials. The majority of systematic reviews were conducted on interventions for asthma and COPD, and mainly focussed upon a small number of pharmacological interventions such as corticosteroids and bronchodilators, including beta-agonists. In contrast, other conditions involving breathlessness have received little or no attention and studies continue to focus upon pharmacological approaches. Moreover, although there are a number of non-pharmacological studies that have shown some promise, particularly for COPD, their conclusions are limited by a lack of good quality evidence from RCTs, small sample sizes and limited replication.

CONCLUSIONS

More research should focus in the future on the management of breathlessness in respiratory diseases other than asthma and COPD. In addition, pharmacological treatments do not completely manage breathlessness and have an added burden of side effects. It is therefore important to focus more research on promising non-pharmacological interventions.

Non-medical management of asthma in adults

Overview of reviews, compiling evidence from multiple Cochrane reviews into one accessible and usable document, is a new methodology being developed by the Cochrane methods group and mastered by the Child Health Network. Overviews of reviews are rapidly gaining in popularity as a 'friendly front end' to the Cochrane Library. Through collating the results of multiple reviews on a single subject, overview of reviews provides the reader with a quick bottom line regarding the quality and utility of existing evidence on the clinical decision at hand. This overview presents a summary of the results of all previous Cochrane reviews on the effect of complementary therapies (non-medical) for the treatment of asthma in adults. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched for all systematic reviews examining the complementary therapies (non-medical) treatment of asthma in adults. All reviews that were under the heading 'asthma' on the Cochrane Airways Group's Topic List were reviewed. Data were extracted and entered into tables; data were synthesized using qualitative and quantitative methods. Currently, twenty-three (23) reviews are published in the CDSR related to non-medical interventions for the management of asthma in adults. The known complexities associated with measuring the effect of complementary therapies resulted in all reviews being unable to find studies which--at least in the form reported--had the strength of evidence that could be generalized beyond the variables of the specific trial.

What evidence is there to support skill mix changes between GPs, pharmacists and practice nurses in the care of elderly people living in the community?

BACKGROUND

Workforce shortages in Australia are occurring across a range of health disciplines but are most acute in general practice. Skill mix change such as task substitution is one solution to workforce shortages. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the evidence for the effectiveness of task substitution between GPs and pharmacists and GPs and nurses for the care of older people with chronic disease. Published, peer reviewed (black) and non-peer reviewed (grey) literature were included in the review if they met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles were included in the review. Task substitution between pharmacists and GPs and nurses and GPs resulted in an improved process of care and patient outcomes, such as improved disease control. The interventions were either health promotion or disease management according to guidelines or use of protocols, or a mixture of both. The results of this review indicate that pharmacists and nurses can effectively provide disease management and/or health promotion for older people with chronic disease in primary care. While there were improvements in patient outcomes no reduction in health service use was evident.

CONCLUSION

When implementing skill mix changes such as task substitution it is important that the health professionals' roles are complementary otherwise they may simply duplicate the task performed by other health professionals. This has implications for the way in which multidisciplinary teams are organised in initiatives such as the GP Super Clinics.

Limited options: a report on GP access to services

BACKGROUND

The Structure of Irish General Practice over 23 years was the third in a series of national studies that examined the development of general practice in 1982, 1992, and 2005.

AIMS

This study analysed specific data from the 2005 survey to determine the types of services offered by GPs, and to examine the changes in access to diagnostic/treatment services from 1982 to 2005.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to a stratified random sample of Irish GPs seeking information on their practice.

RESULTS

476 (87%) valid questionnaires were returned. The range of services offered by GPs had increased. Access to diagnostic/treatment services was limited, and varied considerably depending on the type of practice. Access to chest X-rays and skeletal X-rays had decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to existing services must be increased, and significant resources must be put into the development of dedicated primary care services.

Understanding the potential role of mobile phone-based monitoring on asthma self-management: qualitative study

BACKGROUND

National and international healthcare policy increasingly seeks technological solutions to the challenge of providing care for people with long-term conditions. Novel technologies, however, have the potential to change the dynamics of disease monitoring and self-management. We aimed to explore the opinions and concerns of people with asthma and primary care clinicians on the potential role of mobile phone monitoring technology (transmitting symptoms and peak flows, with immediate feedback of control and reminder of appropriate actions) in supporting asthma self-management.

METHODS

This qualitative study recruited 48 participants (34 adults and teenagers with asthma, 14 asthma nurses and doctors) from primary care in Lothian (Central Scotland) and Kent (South East England). Thirty-nine participated in six focus groups, which included a demonstration of the technology; nine gave in-depth interviews before and after a 4-week trial of the technology.

RESULTS

Participants considered that mobile phone-based monitoring systems can facilitate guided self-management although, paradoxically, may engender dependence on professional/technological support. In the early phases, as patients are learning to accept, understand and control their asthma, this support was seen as providing much-needed confidence. During the maintenance phase, when self-management predominates, patient and professionals were concerned that increased dependence may be unhelpful, although they appreciated that maintaining an on-going record could facilitate consultations.

CONCLUSION

Mobile phone-based monitoring systems have the potential to support guided self-management by aiding transition from clinician-supported early phases to effective self-management during the maintenance phase. Continuing development, adoption and formal evaluation of these systems should take account of the insights provided by our data.

IT-supported skill-mix change and standardisation in integrated eyecare: lessons from two screening projects in The Netherlands

Introduction

Information Technology (IT) has the potential to significantly support skill-mix change and, thereby, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of integrated care.

Theory and methods

IT and skill-mix change share an important precondition: the standardisation of work processes. Standardisation plays a crucial role in IT-supported skill-mix change. It is not a matter of more or less standardisation than in the ‘old’ situation, but about creating an optimal fit. We used qualitative data from our evaluation of two integrated-care projects in Dutch eyecare to identify domains where this fit is important.

Results

While standardisation was needed to delegate screening tasks from physicians to non-physicians, and to assure the quality of the integrated-care process as a whole, tensions arose in three domains: the performance of clinical tasks, the documentation, and the communication between professionals. Unfunctional standardisation led to dissatisfaction and distrust between the professionals involved in screening.

Discussion and conclusion

Although the integration seems promising, much work is needed to ensure a synergistic relationship between skill-mix change and IT. Developing IT-supported skill-mix change by means of standardisation is a matter of tailoring standardisation to fit the situation at hand, while dealing with the local constraints of available technology and organisational context.