Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care

Slok, Annerika; Kotz, Daniel; Breukelen, Gerard van; Chavannes, Niels H.; Mölken, Maureen P. M. H. Rutten-van; Kerstjens, Huib A. M.; Molen, Thys van der; Asijee, Guus M.; Dekhuijzen, P.N.R.; Holverda, Sebastiaan; Salomé, P.; Goossens, Lucas; Twellaar, Mascha; Veen, J.C.C.M. in ’t; Schayck, Onno C. P. van

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011519

Cited by 36 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study protocol stated that "it has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice" [20]. The authors hypothesised that the ABC tool "… will influence self-management, facilitate and stimulate behaviour change …" [19]. However, the primary aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the ABC tool in patients with COPD on health status.…”

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, the authors mention that the ABC tool can be used as a communication tool in primary and hospital care. On the other hand "it provides the opportunity to support personalized care planning" [19]. The study protocol stated that "it has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice" [20].…”

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the light of future healthcare encouraging a patient's functionality and independency, adaptability and flexibility as well as control, autonomy and self-management [21], the authors' hypothesis that "giving patients the possibility and the responsibility in setting personal treatment goals and making their own treatment plan will influence self-management, facilitate and stimulating behavioural change, and eventually lead to an improved quality of life" (by using the ABC tool) sounds promising [19]. However, there are several shortcomings that should be addressed.…”

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was originally developed to "assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm" [20]. The ABC tool has recently been evaluated in a randomised control trial in primary and secondary care settings in the Netherlands studying the effectiveness compared with usual care on health status in the management of patients with COPD over a period of 18 months [19]. The primary outcome was health status as assessed with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ).…”

Section: Assessment Of Burden Of Copd (Abc) Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ABC tool is a computer program visualising these outcomes using coloured balloons (figure 1) [19]. It was originally developed to "assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm" [20].…”

Section: Assessment Of Burden Of Copd (Abc) Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool: perceptionversusevidence

Houben-Wilke¹,

Franssen

Kok

et al. 2017

Eur Respir J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Perception Versus Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessment Of Burden Of Copd (Abc) Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessment Of Burden Of Copd (Abc) Toolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool: perceptionversusevidence

Houben-Wilke¹,

Franssen

Kok

et al. 2017

Eur Respir J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care

Shojania

Jennings²,

Mayhew

et al. 2009

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

360

339

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering ‘computer reminders’. Objectives To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. Selection criteria Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. Main results Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). Authors’ conclusions Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.

show abstract