| Literature DB >> 31289439 |
Yi-Ya Chang1,2, Yu-Tzu Dai3.
Abstract
Purpose: Self-management is widely used among patients with a chronic disease to control their condition. However, the self-management programs are less distinctive for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than those with other chronic diseases. This study examines the efficacy of a flipping education program on improving self-management in patients with COPD. Patients and methods: A single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a medical center in northern Taiwan from January 2015 to May 2016. Sixty participants were randomized to an experimental group and a control group. The self-management program with flipped teaching, customized action plans, and scheduled telephone interviews was implemented in the experimental group for three months. Conventional patient education was implemented in the control group. Disease knowledge, self-efficacy, the patient's activation level, and the impact of COPD were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months after the intervention. SPSS 22.0 was used for data analysis.Entities:
Keywords: COPD; disease knowledge; nurse case manager; patient education; self-efficacy
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31289439 PMCID: PMC6565933 DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S196592
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis ISSN: 1176-9106
Figure 1Study flowchart.
Baseline characteristics of participants (N=60)
| Characteristics | All participants | Experimental group | Control group | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
| Gender | 0.643 | ||||||
| Male | 55 | 91.7% | 27 | 90% | 28 | 93% | |
| Female | 5 | 8.3% | 3 | 10% | 2 | 7% | |
| Age | 72.03 | 11.14 | 70.5 | 11.26 | 73.55 | 10.99 | 0.293 |
| Severity of airflow obstruction | 0.418 | ||||||
| Mild | 35 | 58.3% | 15 | 50.0% | 25 | 66.7% | |
| Moderate | 17 | 28.3% | 10 | 33.3% | 7 | 23.3% | |
| Severe | 8 | 13.3% | 5 | 16.7% | 3 | 10.0% | |
| COPD groupsa | 0.267 | ||||||
| A | 31 | 51.7% | 15 | 50.0% | 25 | 66.7% | |
| B | 25 | 41.7% | 11 | 36.7% | 14 | 46.7% | |
| C | 2 | 3.3% | 2 | 6.7% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| D | 2 | 3.3% | 2 | 6.7% | 0 | 0.0% | |
| Employment status | 0.375 | ||||||
| Full-time job | 10 | 16.7% | 7 | 23.3% | 3 | 10.0% | |
| Part-time job | 6 | 10.0% | 3 | 10.0% | 3 | 10.0% | |
| Retired | 44 | 73.3% | 20 | 66.7% | 24 | 80.0% | |
| Smoking history | 0.195 | ||||||
| Never | 9 | 15.0% | 2 | 6.7% | 7 | 23.3% | |
| Already quit | 42 | 70.0% | 23 | 76.7% | 19 | 63.3% | |
| Still smoking | 9 | 15.0% | 5 | 16.7% | 4 | 13.3% | |
| Realize diagnosed with COPD | 0.197 | ||||||
| Yes | 12 | 20% | 8 | 26.7% | 4 | 13.3% | |
| No | 48 | 80% | 22 | 73.3% | 26 | 86.7% | |
| Vaccination against influenza | 0.260 | ||||||
| Yes | 42 | 70% | 19 | 63.3% | 23 | 76.7% | |
| No | 18 | 30% | 11 | 36.7% | 7 | 23.3% | |
| Vaccination against pneumococcal conjugate | 0.542 | ||||||
| Yes | 14 | 23.3% | 6 | 20% | 8 | 26.7% | |
| No | 46 | 76.7% | 24 | 80% | 22 | 73.3% | |
Notes: aCOPD groups: A, Low risk, less symptoms; B, low risk, more symptoms; C, high risk, less symptoms; D, high risk, high symptoms.
Baseline analysis in different instruments (N=60)
| Outcome measure | Experimental group (n=30) | Control | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease knowledge (COPD-Q) | 7.57±2.49 | 8.07±1.72 | −1.139 | 0.259 |
| Self-efficacy (PRAISE) | 43.50±5.73 | 47.30±7.86 | −2.144 | 0.036* |
| Patient activation level (PAM) | 59.64±14.38 | 65.59±16.20 | −1.504 | 0.138 |
| Impact of COPD (CAT) | 9.93±6.57 | 8.60±4.76 | 0.900 | 0.372 |
Note: *P<0.05.
Generalized estimating equation analysis of longitudinal outcomes and effect size in different instruments (N=60)
| Outcome measure (instrument) | Variable | Estimate | SE | Wald chi-square | Effect size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease knowledge (COPD-Q) | Intercept | 7.267 | 0.3331 | 475.874 | <0.001*** | |
| Experimental groupa | −0.633 | 0.5465 | 1.343 | 0.247 | ||
| T2b | 0.853 | 0.5083 | 2.819 | 0.093 | ||
| T1b | 0.326 | 0.4349 | 0.562 | 0.454 | ||
| Experimental group* T2c | 1.661 | 0.7904 | 4.419 | 0.036* | 0.525 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | 2.300 | 0.6245 | 13.563 | <0.001*** | 0.904 | |
| Self-efficacy (PRAISE) | Intercept | 47.300 | 1.4065 | 1131.023 | <0.001*** | |
| Experimental groupa | −3.800 | 1.7422 | 4.757 | 0.029* | ||
| T2b | 1.540 | 1.2141 | 1.609 | 0.205 | ||
| T1b | −1.448 | 1.4894 | 0.945 | 0.331 | ||
| Experimental group* T2c | 4.812 | 1.7132 | 7.889 | 0.005** | 0.138 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | 6.763 | 1.8682 | 13.105 | <0.001*** | 0.441 | |
| Patient activation level (PAM) | Intercept | 65.593 | 2.9075 | 508.964 | <0.001*** | |
| Experimental groupa | −5.950 | 3.8885 | 2.341 | 0.126 | ||
| T2b | 3.641 | 3.1225 | 1.360 | 0.244 | ||
| T1b | 0.034 | 3.3237 | 0.000 | 0.992 | ||
| Experimental group* T2c | 12.158 | 4.2178 | 8.309 | 0.004** | 0.403 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | 13.887 | 4.5567 | 9.288 | 0.002** | 0.483 | |
| Impact of COPD (CAT) | Intercept | 8.600 | 0.8545 | 101.284 | <0.001*** | |
| Experimental groupa | 1.333 | 1.4564 | 0.838 | 0.360 | ||
| T2b | 0.120 | 1.236 | 0.009 | 0.923 | ||
| T1b | 2.437 | 1.0803 | 5.089 | 0.024* | ||
| Experimental group* T2c | −2.239 | 1.6715 | 1.794 | 0.180 | 0.172 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | −3.926 | 1.5527 | 6.393 | 0.011* | 0.426 |
Notes: *P<0.05, **P<0.01, and ***P<0.001. aReference group: control group, breference group: T0 (baseline), creference group: control group *T0 (T0=baseline, T1=1 month after intervention, T2=3 months after intervention).
Generalized estimating equation analysis of longitudinal outcomes in the impact of COPD (N=60)
| Category | Variable | Estimate | SE | Wald chi-square | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items 1~3 symptoms | Intercept | 4.033 | 0.477 | 71.431 | <0.001 |
| Experimental groupa | 0.567 | 0.730 | 0.602 | 0.438 | |
| T2b | 0.497 | 0.530 | 0.879 | 0.348 | |
| T1b | 1.039 | 0.536 | 3.755 | 0.053 | |
| Experimental group* T2c | −1.794 | 0.7626 | 5.535 | 0.019* | |
| Experimental group* T1c | −1.855 | 0.7215 | 6.606 | 0.010* | |
| Items 4~6 activity | Intercept | 1.733 | 0.3494 | 24.612 | <0.001 |
| Experimental groupa | 0.767 | 0.6086 | 1.587 | 0.208 | |
| T2b | 0.028 | 0.4432 | 0.004 | 0.95 | |
| T1b | 0.738 | 0.4305 | 2.939 | 0.086 | |
| Experimental group* T2c | −0.979 | 0.7575 | 1.671 | 0.196 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | −1.763 | 0.7384 | 5.704 | 0.017* | |
| Items 7~8 impact | Intercept | 2.833 | 0.4057 | 48.763 | <0.001 |
| Experimental groupa | 0.000 | 0.6415 | 0.000 | 1.000 | |
| T2b | −0.406 | 0.5587 | 0.529 | 0.467 | |
| T1b | 0.693 | 0.4417 | 2.465 | 0.116 | |
| Experimental group* T2c | 0.507 | 0.6465 | 0.614 | 0.433 | |
| Experimental group* T1c | −0.371 | 0.5580 | 0.442 | 0.506 |
Notes: *P<0.05. aReference group: control group, breference group: T0 (baseline), creference group: control group *T0 (T0=baseline, T1=1 month after intervention, T2=3 months after intervention).
Comparisons in unexpected medical care for respiratory problems (N=52)
| Outcome measure | Experimental group (n=27) | Control group (n=25) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Mean ± SD | Frequency | Mean ± SD | |||
| Unexpected outpatient visit | 12 | 0.48±0.64 | 11 | 0.44±0.58 | 0.243 | 0.809 |
| Emergency visit | 8 | 0.30±0.61 | 7 | 0.28±0.54 | 0.102 | 0.919 |
| Hospitalization | 2 | 0.11±0.42 | 5 | 0.20±0.41 | −0.769 | 0.445 |
| Total | 22 | 0.88±1.19 | 23 | 0.92±0.97 | −0.102 | 0.919 |