Application of the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the implementation of telehealth pulmonary rehabilitation in a randomized controlled trial among African-American and Hispanic patients with advanced stage Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) decreases rehospitalization for people with COPD. However, less than 2% receive PR, partly due to lack of referral and sparsity of PR facilities. This disparity is particularly pronounced in African American and Hispanic persons with COPD. Telehealth-provided PR could increase access and improve health outcomes.

METHODS

We applied the RE-AIM framework in a post-hoc analysis of our mixed methods RCT comparing referral to Telehealth-delivered PR (TelePR) versus standard PR (SPR) for African American and Hispanic COPD patients hospitalized for COPD exacerbation. Both arms received a referral to PR for 8 weeks, social worker follow-up, and surveys administered at baseline, 8 weeks, 6, and 12 months. PR sessions were conducted twice a week for 90 min each (16 sessions total). Quantitative data were analyzed using 2-sample t tests or nonparametric Wilcoxon tests for continuous data and χ²/Fisher exact tests for categorical data. Logistic regression-estimated odds ratios (ORs) were used for the intention-to-treat primary outcome. Qualitative interviews were conducted at the end of the study to assess adherence and satisfaction and were analyzed using inductive and deductive methods. The goal was to understand Reach (whether the target population was able to be enrolled), Effectiveness (primary outcome was a composite of 6-month COPD rehospitalization and death), Adoption (proportion of people willing to initiate the program), Implementation (whether the program was able to be executed as intended, and Maintenance (whether the program was continued).

RESULTS

Two hundred nine people enrolled out of a 276-recruitment goal. Only 85 completed at least one PR session 57/111 (51%) TelePR; 28/98 (28%) SPR. Referral to TelePR compared to SPR did not decrease the composite outcome of 6-month COPD-readmission rate/death (OR1.35;95%CI 0.69,2.66). There was significant reduction in fatigue (PROMIS® scale) from baseline to 8-weeks in TelePR compared to SPR (MD-1.34; ± SD4.22; p = 0.02). Participants who received TelePR experienced improvements from baseline in several outcomes (ie, before and after 8 weeks of PR) in the following: COPD symptoms, knowledge about COPD management, fatigue, and functional capacity. Among the patients who had 1 initial visit, adherence rates were similar (TelePR arm, 59% of sessions; SPR arm, 63%). No intervention-related adverse events occurred. Barriers to PR adoption included difficulty or reluctance to complete medical clearances and beliefs about PR efficacy. Notably, only 9 participants sustained exercise after program completion. Maintenance of the program was not possible due to low insurance reimbursement and sparsity of Respiratory Therapists.

CONCLUSIONS

TelePR can reach COPD patients with health disparities and can be successfully implemented. The small sample size and large confidence intervals prevent conclusion about the relative effectiveness of participating in TelePR compared to SPR. However, improved outcomes were seen for those in TelePR as well as in SPR. Increasing adoption of PR and TelePR requires consideration of comorbidity burden, and perception of PR utility, and must facilitate medical clearances. Given the sparsity of SPR locations, TelePR can overcome at least the barrier of access. However, given the challenges to the uptake and completion of PR - many of the additional barriers in PR (both in TelePR and SPR) need to be addressed. Awareness of these real-world challenges will not only inform implementation of TelePR for clinicians seeking to adopt this platform but will also inform study designers and reviewers regarding the feasibility of approaches to patient recruitment and retention.

Reaching Ambulatory Older Adults with Educational Tools: Comparative Efficacy and Cost of Varied Outreach Modalities in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Providing patients with access to health information that can be obtained outside of an office visit is an important part of education, yet little is known about the effectiveness of outreach modalities to connect older adults to online educational tools. The objective was to identify the effectiveness and cost of outreach modalities providing online information about advance care planning (ACP) for older adults.

METHODS

Six different outreach modalities were utilized to connect patients to online educational tools (ACP video decision aids). Participants were 13,582 patients aged 65 and older of 185 primary care providers with appointments over a 30-month period within a large health system in the greater New York City area. Main outcome measures were number of online video views and costs per outreach for each modality.

KEY RESULTS

There were 1150 video views for 21,407 remote outreach events. Text messages, sent to the largest volume of patients (8869), had the highest outcome rate (9.6%) and were the most economical ($0.09). Characterization of phone calls demonstrated 21.7% engagement in the topic of ACP but resulted in minimal video views (<1%) and incurred the highest cost per outreach ($2.88). In-office handouts had negligible results (<1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Text was the most cost-effective modality to connect older adults to an online educational tool in this pragmatic trial, though overall efficacy of all modalities was low.

Association of an Advance Care Planning Video and Communication Intervention With Documentation of Advance Care Planning Among Older Adults: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 has disproportionately killed older adults and racial and ethnic minority individuals, raising questions about the relevance of advance care planning (ACP) in this population. Video decision aids and communication skills training offer scalable delivery models.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether ACP video decision aids and a clinician communication intervention improved the rate of ACP documentation during an evolving pandemic, with a focus on African American and Hispanic patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Advance Care Planning: Communicating With Outpatients for Vital Informed Decisions trial was a pre-post, open-cohort nonrandomized controlled trial that compared ACP documentation across the baseline pre-COVID-19 period (September 15, 2019, to March 14, 2020), the COVID-19 wave 1 period (March 15, 2020, to September 14, 2020), and an intervention period (December 15, 2020, to June 14, 2021) at a New York metropolitan area ambulatory network of 22 clinics. All patients 65 years or older who had at least 1 clinic or telehealth visit during any of the 3 study periods were included.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was ACP documentation.

RESULTS

A total of 14 107 patients (mean [SD] age, 81.0 [8.4] years; 8856 [62.8%] female; and 2248 [15.9%] African American or Hispanic) interacted with clinicians during the pre-COVID-19 period; 12 806 (mean [SD] age, 81.2 [8.5] years; 8047 [62.8%] female; and 1992 [15.6%] African American or Hispanic), during wave 1; and 15 106 (mean [SD] 80.9 [8.3] years; 9543 [63.2%] female; and 2535 [16.8%] African American or Hispanic), during the intervention period. Clinicians documented ACP in 3587 patients (23.8%) during the intervention period compared with 2525 (17.9%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (rate difference [RD], 5.8%; 95% CI, 0.9%-7.9%; P = .01) and 1598 (12.5%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.3%; 95% CI, 6.3%-12.1%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented in 447 African American patients (30.0%) during the intervention period compared with 233 (18.1%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-15.9%; P < .001) and 130 (11.0%) during wave 1 (RD, 19.1%; 95% CI, 11.7%-21.2%; P < .001). Advance care planning was documented for 222 Hispanic patients (21.2%) during the intervention period compared with 127 (13.2%) during the pre-COVID-19 period (RD, 8.0%; 95% CI, 2.1%-10.9%; P = .004) and 82 (10.2%) during wave 1 (RD, 11.1%; 95% CI, 5.5%-14.5%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This intervention, implemented during the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, was associated with higher rates of ACP documentation, especially for African American and Hispanic patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

A Telehealth-Delivered Pulmonary Rehabilitation Intervention in Underserved Hispanic and African American Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Community-Based Participatory Research Approach

BACKGROUND

Although home telemonitoring (TM) is a promising approach for patients managing their chronic disease, rehabilitation using home TM has not been tested for use with individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) residing in underserved communities.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze qualitative data from focus groups with key stakeholders to ensure the acceptability and usability of the TM COPD intervention.

METHODS

We utilized a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to adapt a home TM COPD intervention to facilitate acceptability and feasibility in low-income African American and Hispanic patients. The study engaged community stakeholders in the process of modifying the intervention in the context of 2 community advisory board meetings. Discussions were audio recorded and professionally transcribed and lasted approximately 2 hours each. Structural coding was used to mark responses to topical questions in interview guides.

RESULTS

We describe herein the formative process of a CBPR study aimed at optimizing telehealth utilization among African American and Latino patients with COPD from underserved communities. A total of 5 major themes emerged from qualitative analyses of community discussions: equipment changes, recruitment process, study logistics, self-efficacy, and access. The identification of themes was instrumental in understanding the concerns of patients and other stakeholders in adapting the pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) home intervention for acceptability for patients with COPD from underserved communities.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings identify important adaptation recommendations from the stakeholder perspective that should be considered when implementing in-home PR via TM for underserved COPD patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03007485; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03007485.

Disparities in complementary alternative medicine use and asthma exacerbation in the United States

Background: Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are associated with poor asthma medication adherence, a major risk factor for asthma exacerbation. However, previous studies showed inconsistent relationships between CAM use and asthma control due to small sample sizes, demographic differences across populations studied, and poor differentiation of CAM types.Methods: We examined associations between CAM use and asthma exacerbation using a cross-sectional analysis of the 2012 National Health Interview Survey. We included adults ≥18 years with current asthma (n = 2,736) to analyze racial/ethnic differences in CAM use as well as the association between CAM use and both asthma exacerbation and emergency department (ED) visit for asthma exacerbation across racial/ethnic groups. We ran descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions.Result: Blacks (OR = 0.63 [0.49-0.81]) and Hispanics (OR = 0.66 [0.48-0.92]) had decreased odds of using CAM compared to Whites. Overall, there was no association between CAM use and asthma exacerbation (OR = 0.99 [0.79-1.25]) but the subgroup of 'other complementary approaches' was associated with increased odds of asthma exacerbation among all survey respondents (1.90 [1.21-2.97]), Whites (OR = 1.90 [1.21-2.97]), and Hispanics (OR = 1.43 [0.98-2.09). CAM use was associated with decreased odds of an ED visit for asthma exacerbation (OR = 0.65 [0.45-0.93]). These associations were different among racial/ethnic groups with decreased odds of ED visit among Whites (OR = 0.50 [0.32-0.78]) but no association among Blacks and Hispanics.Conclusion: We found that both CAM use and the association between CAM use and asthma exacerbation varied by racial/ethnic group. The different relationship may arise from how CAM is used to complement or to substitute for conventional asthma management.

A Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making About Mechanical Ventilation in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients (InformedTogether): Feasibility Study

Background

Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients are often unprepared to make decisions about accepting intubation for respiratory failure. We developed a Web-based decision aid, InformedTogether, to facilitate severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients’ preparation for decision making about whether to accept invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure.

Objective

We describe feasibility testing of the InformedTogether decision aid.

Methods

Mixed methods, pre- and postintervention feasibility study in outpatient pulmonary and geriatric clinics. Clinicians used InformedTogether with severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Patient-participants completed pre- and postassessments about InformedTogether use. The outcomes measured were the following: feasibility/acceptability, communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication [COMRADE], Medical Communication Competency Scale [MCCS], Observing Patient Involvement [OPTION] scales), and effectiveness of InformedTogether on changing patients' knowledge, Decisional Conflict Scale, and motivation.

Results

We enrolled 11 clinicians and 38 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients at six sites. Feasibility/acceptability: Clinicians and patients gave positive responses to acceptability questions (mean 74.1/89 max [SD 7.24] and mean 59.63/61 [SD 4.49], respectively). Communication: 96% of clinicians stated InformedTogether improved communication (modified MCCS mean 44.54/49 [SD 2.97]; mean OPTION score 32.03/48 [SD 9.27]; mean COMRADE Satisfaction 4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58]; and COMRADE Confidence 4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56]). Preference: Eighty percent of patients discussed preferences with their surrogates by 1-month. Effectiveness: Knowledge scores increased significantly after using InformedTogether (mean difference 3.61 [SD 3. 44], P=.001) and Decisional Conflict decreased (mean difference Decisional Conflict Scale pre/post -13.76 [SD 20.39], P=.006). Motivation increased after viewing the decision aid.

Conclusions

InformedTogether supports high-quality communication and shared decision making among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients, clinicians, and surrogates. The increased knowledge and opportunity to deliberate and discuss treatment choices after using InformedTogether should lead to improved decision making at the time of critical illness.