Literature DB >> 25010353

Development of the Assessment of Burden of COPD tool: an integrated tool to measure the burden of COPD.

Annerika H M Slok1, Johannes C C M in 't Veen2, Niels H Chavannes3, Thys van der Molen4, Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken5, Huib A M Kerstjens6, Philippe L Salomé7, Sebastiaan Holverda8, P N Richard Dekhuijzen9, Denise Schuiten9, Guus M Asijee10, Onno C P van Schayck1.   

Abstract

In deciding on the treatment plan for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the burden of COPD as experienced by patients should be the core focus. It is therefore important for daily practice to develop a tool that can both assess the burden of COPD and facilitate communication with patients in clinical practice. This paper describes the development of an integrated tool to assess the burden of COPD in daily practice. A definition of the burden of COPD was formulated by a Dutch expert team. Interviews showed that patients and health-care providers agreed on this definition. We found no existing instruments that fully measured burden of disease according to this definition. However, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire meets most requirements, and was therefore used and adapted. The adapted questionnaire is called the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale. In addition, the ABC tool was developed, of which the ABC scale is the core part. The ABC tool is a computer program with an algorithm that visualises outcomes and provides treatment advice. The next step in the development of the tool is to test the validity and effectiveness of both the ABC scale and tool in daily practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25010353      PMCID: PMC4498164          DOI: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.21

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med        ISSN: 2055-1010            Impact factor:   2.871


Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) imposes a great burden on patients and is a major cause of morbidity with a significant impact on the wider economy.[1] Airway obstruction used to play an important role in assessing disease severity and in treating COPD. Nowadays, the focus of COPD assessment shifts from merely airway obstruction towards patient-reported outcomes. Hence, the assessment addresses complaints, limitations in daily and social life, the progression of disease, and quality of life from the patients’ perspective.[2] Research has shown that multidimensional indicators, such as the Body Mass Index, Airflow Obstruction, Dyspnoea, and Exercise Capacity Index[3] and quality of life,[4] are better predictors of morbidity, mortality and health-care utilisation than the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) alone. Agusti and MacNee[5] describe the necessity of a more personalised approach. The development of our novel Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool intends to contribute to this approach. It allows quantification and visualisation of the burden of COPD, thereby facilitating the integrated approach crucial for assessment and individualised treatment of COPD. A Dutch expert team was instituted by the Dutch Lung Alliance (in Dutch: Long Alliantie Nederland, LAN) to develop a tool to measure the burden of COPD. Several steps were taken to develop this tool. The first step was to define the burden of COPD. The following definition was formulated: Burden of disease is the physical, emotional, psychological and/or social experiences of a patient with COPD. These experiences influence the patient´s ability to cope with the consequences of COPD and its treatment. The second step was to validate this definition with the experiences of patients and health-care providers. Therefore, three focus group interviews with a total of 17 patients, 21 face-to-face interviews with different health-care professionals and three home visits to severely ill, homebound COPD patients were conducted. The interviews confirmed that our definition was in line with the experiences of patients and health-care providers. The third step was to define the conditions that a burden of COPD instrument should meet. The Dutch expert group formulated nine conditions (Box 1). The fourth step was to perform a literature review to search for questionnaires, instruments or indexes that measure the burden of COPD. The literature review revealed that the currently available instruments do not fully measure the burden of disease according to our definition and they do not meet all the formulated requirements (Figure 1). However, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) met most requirements and was therefore considered to be closest to reflecting the concept of burden of COPD. The CCQ has shown good validity, reliability and responsiveness at group and individual levels.[6,7]
Figure 1

An overview of assessment tools in relation to requirements for a burden of disease instrument.

The fifth step was to develop the ABC scale using the CCQ as a basis. This scale is the core part of the ABC tool. The CCQ was adapted by adding questions for the lacking domains of emotions[8] and fatigue.[9] Three items were added to measure emotional experiences. These items are based on the distress screener of the four-dimensional symptom questionnaire,[8] which measures listlessness, worry and feeling tense. The questions from the distress screener were revised to match the format of the CCQ questions. Furthermore, a question was added about fatigue, based on a study by Van Hooff et al. [9] This item was also formulated in the same way as the questions on the CCQ. The 14 items together form the ABC scale (Table 1). The combination of the ABC scale with objective items—such as a patient’s smoking status and body mass index—creates a measure of the integrated health status of an individual COPD patient. We developed a computer program to visualise the integrated health status of a COPD patient, represented as a balloon for each item of the ABC tool (Figure 2). The combination of the ABC scale, the additional indicators and the visualisation of the scores together forms the ABC tool. A high, green balloon indicates that a patient scores well on a particular item. These green balloons can be used to compliment the patient (e.g., not smoking) and to encourage the patient to continue that behaviour. A low, red balloon indicates that the patient experiences problems on that item. Every score in between is indicated with an orange balloon. The red and dark-orange balloons can be the starting point of discussing the options for improvement with the patient during consultations. Hence, it forms the basis for shared decision making (SDM). Furthermore, an algorithm was developed to link the scores on the integrated health status with treatment advices. These were based on (inter)national treatment guidelines. This advice can guide the patient and care provider towards an integrated and personalised therapy. The ABC tool is consistent with SDM principles.[10] The patient is considered to have a certain level of responsibility in the treatment that lies within his or her possibilities. The patient and health-care provider together can select one balloon on which to elaborate further (SDM choice phase). Clicking on a balloon gives access to treatment options (SDM option phase). The patient and health-care provider can then decide on the treatment goal by selecting an option and placing it in the patient’s treatment plan (SDM decision phase). This goal can then be adjusted further to the individual patient’s needs and preferences. SDM and a personal goal are important in motivating patients to feel responsible for their own treatment and well-being. When treatment advice is followed and the treatment is effective, the consequence is that the balloon for that particular item (e.g. body mass index) will move to a higher (more green) position or will not further decrease. As shown in Figure 2, patients see both the current balloons and the balloons of the previous consultation, which are made gray. The tool can therefore be used during each consultation to monitor a patient’s integrated health status over time. The next step in the development of the tool is to test its validity, its responsiveness and its effectiveness. Therefore it is important to perform a randomised clinical trial that investigates whether the quality of care and quality of life can be improved by using the ABC tool.
Table 1

The Assessment of Burden of COPD scale

Never Hardly ever A few times Several times Many times A great many times Almost all the time
On average, during the past week, how often did you feel:
 1. Short of breath at rest?
 2. Short of breath doing physical activities?
 3. Concerned about getting a cold or your breathing getting worse?
 4. Depressed (down) because of your breathing problems?
In general, during the past week, how much of the time:
 5. Did you cough?
 6. Did you produce phlegm?

Not limited at all Very slightly limited Slightly limited Moderately limited Very limited Extremely limited Totally limited/ or unable to do
On average, during the past week, how limited were you in these activities because of your breathing problems:
 7. Strenuous physical activities (such as climbing stairs, hurrying, doing sports)?
 8. Moderate physical activities (such as walking, house work, carrying things)?
 9. Daily activities at home (such as dressing, washing yourself)?
 10. Social activities (such as talking, being with children, visiting friends/relatives)?

Never Hardly ever A few times Several times Many times A great many times Almost all the time
How often in the past week did you suffer from:
 11. Worry?
 12. Listlessness?
 13. A tense feeling?
 14. Fatigue?
Figure 2

Visualisation of the dimensions influencing integrated health status (Assessment of Burden of COPD tool), changed after treatment.

  9 in total

1.  "How fatigued do you currently feel?" Convergent and discriminant validity of a single-item fatigue measure.

Authors:  Madelon L M van Hooff; Sabine A E Geurts; Michiel A J Kompier; Toon W Taris
Journal:  J Occup Health       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.708

Review 2.  An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters.

Authors:  Gregory Makoul; Marla L Clayman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2005-07-26

Review 3.  Functional status measurement in COPD: a review of available methods and their feasibility in primary care.

Authors:  Janwillem W H Kocks; Guus M Asijee; Ioanna G Tsiligianni; Huib A M Kerstjens; Thys van der Molen
Journal:  Prim Care Respir J       Date:  2011-09

4.  The body-mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnea, and exercise capacity index in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Bartolome R Celli; Claudia G Cote; Jose M Marin; Ciro Casanova; Maria Montes de Oca; Reina A Mendez; Victor Pinto Plata; Howard J Cabral
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-03-04       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  The COPD control panel: towards personalised medicine in COPD.

Authors:  Alvar Agusti; William MacNee
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 9.139

Review 6.  Improving health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Linus H Santo Tomas; Basil Varkey
Journal:  Curr Opin Pulm Med       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 3.155

7.  Validation study of a distress screener.

Authors:  C Braam; S H van Oostrom; B Terluin; R Vasse; H C W de Vet; J R Anema
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2009-04-25

Review 8.  Beyond FEV₁ in COPD: a review of patient-reported outcomes and their measurement.

Authors:  Paul Jones; Marc Miravitlles; Thys van der Molen; Karoly Kulich
Journal:  Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis       Date:  2012-10-16

9.  Development, validity and responsiveness of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire.

Authors:  Thys van der Molen; Brigitte W M Willemse; Siebrig Schokker; Nick H T ten Hacken; Dirkje S Postma; Elizabeth F Juniper
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-04-28       Impact factor: 3.186

  9 in total
  11 in total

1.  The existence of bronchiectasis predicts worse prognosis in patients with COPD.

Authors:  Bei Mao; Hai-Wen Lu; Man-Hui Li; Li-Chao Fan; Jia-Wei Yang; Xia-Yi Miao; Jin-Fu Xu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  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.

Authors:  Annerika H M Slok; Daniel Kotz; Gerard van Breukelen; Niels H Chavannes; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Huib A M Kerstjens; Thys van der Molen; Guus M Asijee; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Sebastiaan Holverda; Philippe L Salomé; Lucas M A Goossens; Mascha Twellaar; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Onno C P van Schayck
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  'To use or not to use': a qualitative study to evaluate experiences of healthcare providers and patients with the assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) tool.

Authors:  Annerika H M Slok; Mascha Twellaar; Leslie Jutbo; Daniel Kotz; Niels H Chavannes; Sebastiaan Holverda; Philippe L Salomé; P N Richard Dekhuijzen; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Denise Schuiten; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Onno C P van Schayck
Journal:  NPJ Prim Care Respir Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 2.871

4.  ABC Index: quantifying experienced burden of COPD in a discrete choice experiment and predicting costs.

Authors:  Lucas M A Goossens; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Melinde R S Boland; Bas Donkers; Marcel F Jonker; Annerika H M Slok; Philippe L Salomé; Onno C P van Schayck; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Elly A Stolk
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

Authors:  Inger L Abma; Maroeska M Rovers; Marijke IJff; Bernard Hol; Masha Nägele; Gert P Westert; Philip J van der Wees
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  The Fold-in, Fold-out Design for DCE Choice Tasks: Application to Burden of Disease.

Authors:  Lucas M A Goossens; Marcel F Jonker; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Melinde R S Boland; Annerika H M Slok; Philippe L Salomé; Onno C P van Schayck; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Elly A Stolk; Bas Donkers
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  ABC-tool reinvented: development of a disease-specific 'Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool' for multiple chronic conditions.

Authors:  Esther A Boudewijns; Danny Claessens; Onno C P van Schayck; Lotte C E M Keijsers; Philippe L Salomé; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Henk J G Bilo; Annerika H M Gidding-Slok
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2020-01-13       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  Does Evaluation and Management of COPD Follow Therapeutic Strategy Recommendations?

Authors:  Fernando J Martinez; Byron Thomashow; Tamar Sapir; Laura Simone; Jeffrey Carter; MeiLan Han
Journal:  Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis       Date:  2021-04-27

9.  Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ABC) tool: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in primary and secondary care.

Authors:  Annerika H M Slok; Johannes C C M In 't Veen; Niels H Chavannes; Thys van der Molen; Maureen Pmh Rutten-van Mölken; Huib A M Kerstjens; Guus M Asijee; Philippe L Salomé; Sebastiaan Holverda; Richard P N Dekhuijzen; Denise Schuiten; Gerard van Breukelen; Daniel Kotz; Onno C P van Schayck
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.317

10.  Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study.

Authors:  Esther A Boudewijns; Danny Claessens; Manuela Joore; Lotte C E M Keijsers; Onno C P van Schayck; Bjorn Winkens; Annerika H M Gidding-Slok
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.