A patient decision aid for mild asthma: Navigating a new asthma treatment paradigm

The experience of shared decision-making for people with asthma: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies

OBJECTIVES

To identify, describe and synthesise the views and experiences of adults living with asthma regarding shared decision-making (SDM) in the existing qualitative literature METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of 10 databases (list databases) from inception until September 2023. Screening was performed according to inclusion criteria. Tools from the Joanna Briggs lnstitute were utilised for the purposes of data extraction and synthesis in this study. The data extraction process in this study employed the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) as a framework, and a pragmatic meta-aggregative approach was employed to synthesise the collected results.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included in the metasynthesis. Three synthesised themes were identified: the capability of people living with asthma, the opportunities of people living with asthma in SDM, and the motivation of the people living with asthma in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified specific factors influencing people living with asthma engaging in SDM. The findings of this study can serve as a basis for the implementation of SDM in people living with asthma and provide insights for the development of their SDM training programs. The ConQual score for the synthesised findings was rated as low. To enhance confidence, future studies should address dependability and credibility factors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This review contemplates the implementation of SDM from the perspective of people living with asthma, with the aim of providing patient-centred services for them. The results of this review can benefit the implementation of SDM and facilitate information sharing. It offers guidance for SDM skills training among adults living with asthma, fosters a better doctor-patient relationship and facilitates consensus in treatment decisions, thereby enabling personalised and tailored medical care.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Three nursing graduate students participated in the data extraction and integration process, with two students having extensive clinical experience that provided valuable insights for the integration.

Shared decision-making in food allergy: Navigating an exciting era

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly used in food allergy. We review its use in the areas of prevention, diagnosis, and management.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and online SDM resources.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and areas in food allergy that decision-making may be applied were selected for discussion.

RESULTS

Food allergy represents an area with multiple opportunities for SDM. Patients, on one hand, need to obtain the necessary information and understanding of existing options from the allergist. The allergist, on the other hand, needs to understand "where the patient is coming from," their needs, preferences, and values, so that jointly they can reach a decision that is responsive to these. Benefits of SDM include a better understanding of disease by patients, improved compliance with medication, better health outcomes, decreased health care costs, and improved ability of patients to manage their disease and make informed choices.

CONCLUSION

In food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and management, multiple preference-sensitive options exist for patients where SDM may be used during allergy consultations, alongside decision aids. Decision aids are tools that assist and support patients during the SDM process, by supplementing the patient-physician interaction.

The future of allergic rhinitis management: A partnership between healthcare professionals and patients

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic respiratory condition that internationally continues to be burdensome and impacts quality of life. Despite availability of medicines and guidelines for healthcare providers for the optimal management of AR, optimisation of its management in the community continues to be elusive. The reasons for this are multi-faceted and include both environmental and healthcare related factors. One factor that we can no longer ignore is that AR management is no longer limited to the domain of healthcare provider and that people with AR make their own choices when choosing how to manage their condition, without seeking advice from a health care provider. We must build a bridge between healthcare provider knowledge and guidelines and patient decision-making. With this commentary, we propose that a shared decision-making approach between healthcare professionals and people with AR be developed and promoted, with a focus on patient health literacy. As custodians of AR knowledge, we have a responsibility to ensure it is accessible to those that matter most-the people with AR.

Mild asthma: Conundrums, complexities and the need to customize care

Mild and moderate asthma cover a wide range of asthma presentations, phenotypes and symptom burden, and account for the majority of people with asthma worldwide. Mild asthma has been difficult to define because of its heterogeneity and wide spectrum of impact and outcomes, including being associated with severe exacerbations. Assessment of mild-moderate asthma is best made by combining asthma symptom control and exacerbation risk as the principle means by which to determine treatment needs. Incontrovertible evidence and guidelines support treatment initiation with anti-inflammatory medication, completely avoiding reliever-only treatment of mild asthma. Shared decision making with patients and a treatable traits approach will ensure that a holistic approach is taken to maximize patient outcomes. Most importantly, mild asthma should be regarded as a reversible, potentially curable condition, remaining in long-term remission through minimizing triggers and optimizing care.

An Electronic Shared Decision-Making App to Improve Asthma Outcomes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) incorporates patient values and preferences to optimize asthma management decisions. Available asthma SDM aids primarily focus on medication selection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the usability, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of an electronic SDM application, the ACTION (Active Conversation in asthma Treatment shared decisION-making) app, that addressed medication, nonmedication, and COVID-19 concerns for asthma.

METHODS

In this pilot study, 81 participants with asthma were randomized into the control arm or ACTION app intervention. The ACTION app was completed 1 week before a clinic visit, and responses were shared with the medical provider. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction and SDM quality. Next, ACTION app users (n = 9) and providers (n = 5) provided feedback through separate virtual focus groups. Sessions were coded by comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The ACTION app group scored higher agreement that providers adequately addressed COVID-19 concerns compared with the control group (4.4 vs 3.7, P = .03). Although the ACTION app group had a higher total 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire score, this did not reach statistical significance (87.1 vs 83.3, P = .2). However, the ACTION app group demonstrated stronger agreement that their physician knew exactly how they wanted to be involved in decision-making (4.3 vs 3.8, P = .05), providers asked about preferences (4.3 vs 3.8, P = .05), and that different options were thoroughly weighed (4.3 vs 3.8, P = .03). Major focus group themes included that the ACTION app was practical and established a patient-centered agenda.

CONCLUSION

An electronic asthma SDM app that incorporates patient preferences regarding nonmedication-related, medication-related, and COVID-19-related concerns is well accepted and can improve patient satisfaction and SDM.

Beginning to Address an Implementation Gap in Asthma: Clinicians' Views of Prescribing Reliever Budesonide-Formoterol Inhalers and SMART in the United States

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recently made paradigm-shifting recommendations regarding inhaler management in asthma. The Global Initiative for Asthma now recommends that combination inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol inhalers replace short-acting β-agonists as the preferred reliever therapy at all steps of asthma management. Although the most recent guidelines of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program did not review reliever ICS-formoterol usage in mild asthma, they similarly recommended single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) at steps 3 and 4 of asthma management. Despite these recommendations, many clinicians-particularly in the United States-are not prescribing new inhaler paradigms. Clinician-level reasons for this implementation gap remain largely unexplored.

OBJECTIVE

To gain an in-depth understanding of the facilitators and barriers to prescribing reliever ICS-formoterol inhalers and SMART in the United States.

METHODS

Community and academic primary care providers, pulmonologists, and allergists who reported regularly caring for adults with asthma were interviewed. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, qualitatively coded, and analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were continued until theme saturation.

RESULTS

Among 20 interviewed clinicians, only 6 clinicians described regularly prescribing ICS-formoterol inhalers as a reliever inhaler (either alone or within SMART). Significant barriers to new inhaler approaches included concerns surrounding a lack of Food and Drug Administration labeling for ICS-formoterol as a reliever therapy, a lack of awareness regarding a patient's formulary-preferred ICS-long-acting β-agonist choices, the high cost of combination inhalers, and time constraints. Facilitators to using new inhaler approaches included clinicians' beliefs that the latest inhaler recommendations are simpler and more congruent with real-world patients' behavior, and that a potential change in management strategy would offer a valuable opportunity for shared decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Although new guidelines exist in asthma, many clinicians described significant barriers to using them including medicolegal issues, pharmaceutical formulary confusion, and high drug costs. Nonetheless, most clinicians believed that the latest inhaler approaches would be more intuitive for their patients and would offer an opportunity for patient-centered collaboration and care. Stakeholders may find these results useful in future attempts to increase the real-world adoption of recent asthma recommendations.

Reductions in inhaler greenhouse gas emissions by addressing care gaps in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an analysis

INTRODUCTION

Climate change from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions represents one of the greatest public health threats of our time. Inhalers (and particularly metred-dose inhalers (MDIs)) used for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), constitute an important source of GHGs. In this analysis, we aimed to estimate the carbon footprint impact of improving three distinct aspects of respiratory care that drive avoidable inhaler use in Canada.

METHODS

We used published data to estimate the prevalence of misdiagnosed disease, existing inhaler use patterns, medication class distributions, inhaler type distributions and GHGs associated with inhaler actuations, to quantify annual GHG emissions in Canada: (1) attributable to asthma and COPD misdiagnosis; (2) attributable to overuse of rescue inhalers due to suboptimally controlled symptoms; and (3) avoidable by switching 25% of patients with existing asthma and COPD to an otherwise comparable therapeutic option with a lower GHG footprint.

RESULTS

We identified the following avoidable annual GHG emissions: (1) ~49 100 GHG metric tons (MTs) due to misdiagnosed disease; (2) ~143 000 GHG MTs due to suboptimal symptom control; and (3) ~262 100 GHG MTs due to preferential prescription of strategies featuring MDIs over lower-GHG-emitting options (when 25% of patients are switched to lower GHG alternatives). Combined, the GHG emission reductions from bridging these gaps would be the equivalent to taking ~101 100 vehicles off the roads each year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that the carbon savings from addressing misdiagnosis and suboptimal disease control are comparable to those achievable by switching one in four patients to lower GHG-emitting therapeutic strategies. Behaviour change strategies required to achieve and sustain delivery of evidence-based real-world care are complex, but the added identified incentive of carbon footprint reduction may in itself prove to be a powerful motivator for change among providers and patients. This additional benefit can be leveraged in future behaviour change interventions.

Assessing the Impact of Health Education Intervention on Asthma Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices: A Cross-Sectional Study in Erbil, Iraq

Asthma causes chronic coughing, wheezing, dyspnea, and chest pressure. This study assessed asthmatic patients' knowledge, attitudes, and practice (KAP) of bronchial asthma and proper education on its meaning, risk factors, symptoms, diagnosis, management, and prevention practices. We performed a cross-sectional interventional asthma KAP survey in Erbil, Iraq. We adapted a validated study questionnaire from KAP studies in other nations to the Erbil situation and culture. In Erbil, Kurdistan, Iraq, two major hospitals' asthma clinics were studied. We chose 250 asthmatic patients from October 2018 to July 2019. Health education was comprehensive. The health education program used a Kurdish PowerPoint with a printout. Twenty-five groups received two weeks of one-hour health education pre-intervention. Each group was questioned before, 2 weeks after, and 12 weeks after health education. All data were analyzed by SPSS v26. The mean age of the respondents was 37.52 ± 15.16, with 48.7% of the respondents having a positive family history of asthma. After 2 weeks of health education intervention, respondents had a higher knowledge score and positive attitudes compared to pre-education, and after 12 weeks of education, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001) with improvised prevention practice. Health education programs led to considerable improvements in asthmatic patients' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding their condition. After receiving health education for a period of two weeks, the majority of the participants answered correctly regarding asthma, its causes, and the elements that trigger asthma attacks.

Stroke Survivors’ Experiences and Needs during the Decision-making Process Considering Rehabilitation Options: A Pilot Descriptive Study in Japan

Objectives:

The purposes of the present study were to describe stroke survivors’ experiences and to identify their support needs when faced with decisions about rehabilitation.

Methods:

Based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework needs assessment, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 stroke survivors. The degree of participation in decision-making and anxiety were assessed quantitatively. All interview transcripts describing their experiences and emotions were qualitatively analyzed.

Results:

All participants had hemiplegia but could perform their daily activities unassisted. Most participants played an active role in decision-making, but 13 patients felt some anxiety when choosing chronic-phase rehabilitation programs. Qualitative analysis identified 19 codes, of which 13 were categorized into the four factors of knowledge, values, certainty, and support. The codes related to patient feelings of anxiety and insecurity about making decisions were “lack of information about options,” difficulty in “selecting appropriate information,” and “lack of support” from medical staff. Trustworthy specialist support and prior knowledge of rehabilitation were identified as factors that could help patients feel more secure about making decisions.

Conclusions:

To support stroke survivors in their decision-making about rehabilitation, each patient should be given a long-term perspective on stroke rehabilitation and sufficient information on rehabilitation options tailored to their individual needs. Decision aids for stroke survivors built on these findings will be used in clinical practice, and their efficacy will be verified in future studies.