Systematic review of shared decision-making interventions for people living with chronic respiratory diseases

The Evolution of Patient Empowerment and Its Impact on Health Care's Future

In the 21st century, health care has been going through a paradigm shift called digital health. Due to major advances and breakthroughs in information technologies, most recently artificial intelligence, the patriarchy of the doctor-patient relationship has started evolving toward an equal-level partnership with initial signs of patient autonomy. Being an underused resource for centuries, patients have started to contribute to their care with information, data, insights, preferences, and knowledge. It is important to recognize that at its core, digital health represents a cultural transformation, where patient empowerment has likely played the most significant role in driving these changes. This viewpoint paper traces the remarkable journey of patient empowerment from its nascent stages to its current prominence in shaping health care's future. Spanning over two and a half decades, we explore pivotal moments and technological advancements that have revolutionized the patient's role in health care. We dive into a few historical milestones, mainly in the United States, that have challenged and redefined societal norms around agency, drawing parallels between patient empowerment and broader social movements, such as the women's suffrage and civil rights movements. Through these lenses, we argue that patient empowerment is not solely a function of knowledge or technology but requires a fundamental shift in societal attitudes, policies, health care culture, and practices. As we look to the future, we posit that the continued empowerment of patients will play a pivotal role in the development of more equitable, effective, and personalized health care systems. This paper calls for an ongoing commitment to fostering environments that support patient agency, access to resources, and the realization of patient potential in navigating and contributing to their health outcomes with an emphasis on the emerging significance of patient design.

Precision medicine advances in cystic fibrosis: Exploring genetic pathways for targeted therapies

Personalized medicine has transformed the treatment of cystic fibrosis (CF), providing customized therapeutic approaches based on individual genetic profiles. This review explores the genetic foundations of CF, focusing on mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene and their implications for the development of the disease. The advent of genetic testing has enabled the association of specific mutations to disease severity, leading to the development of CFTR modulators like Ivacaftor, Lumacaftor, and Tezacaftor. Beyond CFTR mutations, genetic modifiers, including gene replacement therapy, genetic manipulation, lentivirus, and non-viral gene therapy formulations, along with environmental factors, play critical roles in influencing disease expression and outcomes. The identification of these modifiers is essential for optimizing therapeutic strategies. Emerging biomarkers, including inflammatory markers and pulmonary function indicators, aid in early disease detection and monitoring progression. Omics technologies are uncovering novel biomarkers, enabling more precise disease management. Pharmacogenomics has become integral to CF care, allowing for personalized approaches that consider genetic variations influencing drug metabolism, especially in antibiotics and anti-inflammatory therapies. The future of CF treatment lies in precision therapies, including CFTR modulators and cutting-edge techniques like gene therapy and CRISPR-Cas9 for mutation correction. As research evolves, these advances can improve patient outcomes while minimizing adverse effects. Ethical considerations and regulatory challenges remain critical as personalized medicine advances, ensuring equitable access and the long-term effectiveness of these innovative therapies.

The patient perspective on the environmental impact of inhalers

INTRODUCTION

Increasing the proportion of low-carbon inhalers prescribed within the NHS forms a central part of net-zero policy. Yet, the patients' perspective on this strategy has not been determined. We aimed to establish if environmental issues are important to respiratory patients and whether this may influence inhaler choice.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of 61 respiratory patients at the Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London to establish their perspective on the environmental impact of inhalers.

RESULTS

We identified that 70.5 % (43/61) of patients did not know that inhalers could contribute to climate change. Furthermore, 85.3 % (52/61) of patients felt it was 'quite' or 'very important' to reduce their own contribution to climate change. Importantly, 59 % (36/61) of patients would actively want to change inhalers and 26.2 % (16/61) would consider changing inhalers based on this information. There was no significant difference based on age (< or ≥ 60 years) (Chi2 = 1.2, p = 0.28) or gender (Chi2 = 0.88, p = 0.77).

DISCUSSION

These findings demonstrate that environmental issues are important to respiratory patients. Despite this, the environmental impact of inhalers is not routinely discussed with patients. Once provided with this information patients actively want to change to low-carbon inhalers. Hence, the environmental impact of inhalers should be shared with patients to help us to achieve a net-zero NHS.

A shared decision-making intervention between health care professionals and individuals undergoing Pulmonary Rehabilitation: An iterative development process with qualitative methods

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) services typically offer programmes to support individuals living with COPD make rehabilitation choices that best meet their needs, however, uptake remains low. Shared Decision-Making (SDM; e.g., Patient Decision Aids (PtDA)) interventions increase informed and values-based decision-making between individuals and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We aimed to develop an intervention to facilitate PR SDM which was acceptable to individuals living with COPD and PR HCPs.

METHODS

An iterative development process involving qualitative methods was adopted. Broad overarching frameworks included: complex intervention development framework, the multiple stakeholder decision making support model, and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Development included: assembling a steering group, outlining the scope for the PtDA, collating data to inform the PtDA design, prototype development, alpha testing with individuals with COPD (n = 4) and PR HCPs (n = 8), PtDA finalisation, and design and development of supporting components. This took nine months.

RESULTS

The PtDA was revised six times before providing an acceptable, comprehensible, and usable format for all stakeholders. Supporting components (decision coaching training and a consultation prompt) were necessary to upskill PR HCPs in SDM and implement the intervention into the PR pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a three-component SDM intervention (a PtDA, decision coaching training for PR healthcare professionals, and a consultation prompt) to support individuals living with COPD make informed and values-based decision about PR together with their PR healthcare professional. Clear implementation strategies are outlined which should support its integration into the PR pathway.

Implementation of virtual pulmonary rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences and perceptions of patients and healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) plays an important role in the management of symptomatic patients with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD). While studies have investigated the feasibility and efficacy of virtual PR (VPR), it is important to understand the experiences of patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) during the rapid digital health transformation that occurred in the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the experiences and perspectives of patients and HCPs who participated in VPR during the pandemic.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with CRD patients and HCPs. This study used a qualitative descriptive approach and a team-based inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants included 11 HCPs (7 female; 29-55 years) and 19 CRD patients (11 male; 62-83 years; 15 COPD, 4 COPD/ILD). Three major themes and 10 subthemes were identified: i) the pandemic response: a 'trial by fire' (navigating uncertainty, emotional impact of change, shifting practice amid complexity); ii) beyond the emergency: navigating a 'new normal' (eligibility and assessment for VPR, virtual exercise, virtual education and resources, clinical supervision and patient safety); and iii) care beyond boundaries: the implications of using technology for PR (benefits and limitations of technology, psychosocial implications, VPR in the future).

CONCLUSION

The pivot to VPR was acknowledged as positive by both patients and HCPs although both groups were mindful of the implementation challenges. These findings provide insight into the experience of HCPs and patients in introducing VPR in response to the pandemic and will inform future implementation of VPR for individuals with CRD.

Clinically important changes and adverse events with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic respiratory disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To determine the proportion of people who achieve minimal clinically important differences (MCID) with centre-based or home-based pulmonary rehabilitation and to synthesise data on adverse events.Methods: Cochrane reviews and electronic databases were searched to identify randomised trials comparing centre-based to home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or either model to usual care, in people with chronic respiratory disease. Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants achieving MCIDs in exercise capacity and disease-specific quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms and adverse events. Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 and GRADE were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence respectively.Results: Forty-nine trials were eligible. Compared to usual care, a higher proportion of pulmonary rehabilitation participants achieved the MCID for exercise capacity (6MWT: 47% vs 20%, p = 0.11), dyspnoea (43% vs 29%, p = 0.0001), fatigue (48% vs 27%, p = 0.0002) and emotional function (37% vs 25%, p = 0.02), with all of these between group differences statistically significant except for exercise capacity. There were no differences between centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in the proportion of participants who achieved MCIDs (34%- 58% across studies). Ninety percent of trials reported no adverse events. Certainty of evidence was low-to- moderate with all outcomes except for CRQ-mastery (centre-based vs home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD), ESWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in COPD) and 6MWT (pulmonary rehabilitation vs usual care in bronchiectasis) where evidence was very uncertain.Discussion: Clinically meaningful outcomes are achieved by similar proportions of participants in centre-based and home-based pulmonary rehabilitation, with few adverse events. Reporting of trial outcomes according to MCIDs is necessary for informed decision making regarding pulmonary rehabilitation models.

A shared decision-making intervention for individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who are considering the menu of pulmonary rehabilitation treatment options; a feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

Shared Decision Making (SDM) has potential to support Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) decision-making when patients are offered a menu of centre- and home-based options. This study sought to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a three-component PR SDM intervention for individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and PR healthcare professionals.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from Dec 2021-Sep 2022. Healthcare professionals attended decision coaching training and used the consultation prompt during consultations. Individuals received the Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) at PR referral. Outcomes included recruitment capability, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and acceptability. Questionnaires assessed patient activation and decisional conflict pre and post-PR. Consultations were assessed using Observer OPTION-5. Optional interviews/focus groups were conducted.

RESULTS

13% of individuals [n = 31, 32% female, mean (SD) age 71.19 (7.50), median (IQR) MRC dyspnoea 3.50 (1.75)] and 100 % of healthcare professionals (n = 9, 78% female) were recruited. 28 (90.32%) of individuals completed all questionnaires. SDM was present in all consultations [standardised scores were mean (SD) = 36.97 (21.40)]. Six healthcare professionals and five individuals were interviewed. All felt consultations using the PtDA minimised healthcare professionals' bias of centre-based PR, increased individuals' self-awareness of their health, prompted consideration of how to improve it, and increased involvement in decision-making.

DISCUSSION

Results indicate the study processes and SDM intervention is feasible and acceptable and can be delivered with fidelity when integrated into the PR pathway.