Self-management interventions that include a COPD exacerbation action plan are associated with improvements in HRQoL, as measured with the SGRQ, and lower probability of respiratory-related hospital admissions. No excess all-cause mortality risk was observed, but exploratory analysis showed a small, but significantly higher respiratory-related mortality rate for self-management compared to usual care.For future studies, we would like to urge only using action plans together with self-management interventions that meet the requirements of the most recent COPD self-management intervention definition. To increase transparency, future study authors should provide more detailed information regarding interventions provided. This would help inform further subgroup analyses and increase the ability to provide stronger recommendations regarding effective self-management interventions that include action plans for AECOPD. For safety reasons, COPD self-management action plans should take into account comorbidities when used in the wider population of people with COPD who have comorbidities. Although we were unable to evaluate this strategy in this review, it can be expected to further increase the safety of self-management interventions. We also advise to involve Data and Safety Monitoring Boards for future COPD self-management studies.
There is an urgent need for consensus on what defines a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) self-management intervention. We aimed to obtain consensus regarding the conceptual definition of a COPD self-management intervention by engaging an international panel of COPD self-management experts using Delphi technique features and an additional group meeting.In each consensus round the experts were asked to provide feedback on the proposed definition and to score their level of agreement (1=totally disagree; 5=totally agree). The information provided was used to modify the definition for the next consensus round. Thematic analysis was used for free text responses and descriptive statistics were used for agreement scores.In total, 28 experts participated. The consensus round response rate varied randomly over the five rounds (ranging from 48% (n=13) to 85% (n=23)), and mean definition agreement scores increased from 3.8 (round 1) to 4.8 (round 5) with an increasing percentage of experts allocating the highest score of 5 (round 1: 14% (n=3); round 5: 83% (n=19)).In this study we reached consensus regarding a conceptual definition of what should be a COPD self-management intervention, clarifying the requisites for such an intervention. Operationalisation of this conceptual definition in the near future will be an essential next step.
Community Q fever epidemics occurred in the Netherlands in 2007–2009, with dairy goat and dairy sheep farms as the implicated source. The aim of the study was to determine the seroprevalence and risk factors for seropositivity in dairy goat farmers and their household members living or working on these farms. Sera of 268 people living or working on 111 dairy goat farms were tested for Coxiella burnetii IgG and IgM antibodies using immunofluorescence assay. Seroprevalences in farmers, spouses and children (12–17 years) were 73.5%, 66.7%, and 57.1%, respectively. Risk factors for seropositivity were: performing three or more daily goat-related tasks, farm location in the two southern provinces of the country, proximity to bulk milk-positive farms, distance from the nearest stable to residence of 10 meters or less, presence of cats and multiple goat breeds in the stable, covering stable air spaces and staff not wearing farm boots. Goat farmers have a high risk to acquire this occupational infection. Clinicians should consider Q fever in this population presenting with compatible symptoms to allow timely diagnosis and treatment to prevent severe sequelae. Based on the risk factors identified, strengthening general biosecurity measures is recommended such as consistently wearing boots and protective clothing by farm staff to avoid indirect transmission and avoiding access of companion animals in the goat stable. Furthermore, it provides an evidence base for continuation of the current vaccination policy for small ruminants, preventing spread from contaminated farms to other farms in the vicinity. Finally, vaccination of seronegative farmers and household members could be considered.
ObjectiveThe 12-item Partners in Health scale (PIH) was developed in Australia to measure self-management behaviour and knowledge in patients with chronic diseases, and has undergone several changes. Our aim was to assess the construct validity and reliability of the latest PIH version in Dutch COPD patients.MethodsThe 12 items of the PIH, scored on a self-rated 9-point Likert scale, are used to calculate total and subscale scores (knowledge; coping; recognition and management of symptoms; and adherence to treatment). We used forward-backward translation of the latest version of the Australian PIH to define a Dutch PIH (PIH(Du)). Mokken Scale Analysis and common Factor Analysis were performed on data from a Dutch COPD sample to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch PIH; and to determine whether the four-subscale solution previously found for the original Australian PIH could be replicated for the Dutch PIH.ResultsTwo subscales were found for the Dutch PIH data (n = 118); 1) knowledge and coping; 2) recognition and management of symptoms, adherence to treatment. The correlation between the two Dutch subscales was 0.43. The lower-bound of the reliability of the total scale equalled 0.84. Factor analysis indicated that the first two factors explained a larger percentage of common variance (39.4% and 19.9%) than could be expected when using random data (17.5% and 15.1%).ConclusionWe recommend using two PIH subscale scores when assessing self-management in Dutch COPD patients. Our results did not support the four-subscale structure as previously reported for the original Australian PIH.
This international randomised controlled trial evaluated whether COPD patients with comorbidities, trained in using patient-tailored multidisease exacerbation action plans, had fewer COPD exacerbation days than usual care (UC).COPD patients (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification II–IV) with ≥1 comorbidity (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, diabetes, anxiety, depression) were randomised to a patient-tailored self-management intervention (n=102) or UC (n=99). Daily symptom diaries were completed for 12 months. The primary outcome “COPD exacerbation days per patient per year” was assessed using intention-to-treat analyses.No significant difference was observed in the number of COPD exacerbation days per patient per year (self-management: median 9.6 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7–31.1); UC: median 15.6 (IQR 3.0–40.3); incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.87 (95% CI 0.54; 1.39); p=0.546). There was a significantly shorter duration per COPD exacerbation for self-management (self-management: median 8.1 (IQR 4.8–10.1) days; UC: median 9.5 (IQR 7.0–15.1) days; p=0.021), with no between-group differences in the total number of respiratory hospitalisations (IRR 0.76 (95% CI 0.42; 1.35); p=0.348), but a lower probability of ≥1 for respiratory-related hospitalisation compared to UC (relative risk 0.55 (95% CI 0.35; 0.87); p=0.008). No between-group differences were observed in all-cause hospitalisations (IRR 1.07 (95% CI 0.66; 1.72)) or mortality (self-management: n=4 (3.9%); UC: n=7 (7.1%); relative risk 0.55 (95% CI 0.17; 1.84)).Patient-tailored exacerbation action plans for COPD patients with comorbidities did not significantly reduce exacerbation days, but reduced the duration per COPD exacerbation and the risk of having at least one respiratory-related hospitalisation during follow-up, without excess all-cause mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.