Scott A Damon1, Richard R Tardif. 1. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Environmental Health, Air Pollution & Respiratory Health Branch , Chamblee, GA , USA and.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This project began as a qualitative examination of how asthma education provided by health professionals could be improved. Unexpected qualitative findings regarding the use of Asthma Action Plans and the importance of insurance reimbursement for asthma education prompted further quantitative examination. METHODS: Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with primary care physicians in private practice who routinely provide initial diagnoses of asthma and focus groups were conducted with other clinicians in private primary care practices who routinely provide asthma education. Using the DocStyles quantitative tool two questions regarding Asthma Action Plans and insurance reimbursement were asked of a representative sample of physicians and other clinicians. RESULTS: The utility of Asthma Action Plans was questioned in the 2012 qualitative study. Qualitative findings also raised questions regarding whether reimbursement is the barrier to asthma education for patients performed by medical professionals it is thought to be. 2013 quantitative findings show that the majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as useful. The question of whether reimbursement is a barrier to providing asthma education to patients was not resolved by the quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as a useful tool for patient education. Clinicians had less clear opinions on whether the lack of defined reimbursement codes acted as a barrier to asthma education. The study also provided useful audience data for design of new asthma educational tools developed by CDC.
OBJECTIVE: This project began as a qualitative examination of how asthma education provided by health professionals could be improved. Unexpected qualitative findings regarding the use of Asthma Action Plans and the importance of insurance reimbursement for asthma education prompted further quantitative examination. METHODS: Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with primary care physicians in private practice who routinely provide initial diagnoses of asthma and focus groups were conducted with other clinicians in private primary care practices who routinely provide asthma education. Using the DocStyles quantitative tool two questions regarding Asthma Action Plans and insurance reimbursement were asked of a representative sample of physicians and other clinicians. RESULTS: The utility of Asthma Action Plans was questioned in the 2012 qualitative study. Qualitative findings also raised questions regarding whether reimbursement is the barrier to asthma education for patients performed by medical professionals it is thought to be. 2013 quantitative findings show that the majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as useful. The question of whether reimbursement is a barrier to providing asthma education to patients was not resolved by the quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as a useful tool for patient education. Clinicians had less clear opinions on whether the lack of defined reimbursement codes acted as a barrier to asthma education. The study also provided useful audience data for design of new asthma educational tools developed by CDC.
Authors: Fabienne Djandji; Alexandrine J Lamontagne; Lucie Blais; Simon L Bacon; Pierre Ernst; Roland Grad; Kim L Lavoie; Martha L McKinney; Eve Desplats; Francine M Ducharme Journal: NPJ Prim Care Respir Med Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 2.871