Suppr超能文献

针对城市成年黑人开展的量身定制的简短共同决策以改善哮喘控制的群组随机试验。

Group-randomized trial of tailored brief shared decision-making to improve asthma control in urban black adults.

作者信息

George Maureen, Bruzzese Jean-Marie, Lynn S Sommers Marilyn, Pantalon Michael V, Jia Haomiao, Rhodes Joseph, Norful Allison A, Chung Annie, Chittams Jesse, Coleman Danielle, Glanz Karen

机构信息

Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, NY, USA.

University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

出版信息

J Adv Nurs. 2021 Mar;77(3):1501-1517. doi: 10.1111/jan.14646. Epub 2020 Nov 29.

Abstract

AIMS

To assess the intervention effects of BREATHE (BRief intervention to Evaluate Asthma THErapy), a novel brief shared decision-making intervention and evaluate feasibility and acceptability of intervention procedures.

DESIGN

Group-randomized longitudinal pilot study.

METHODS

In total, 80 adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma participated in a trial comparing BREATHE (N = 40) to a dose-matched attention control intervention (N = 40). BREATHE is a one-time shared decision-making intervention delivered by clinicians during routine office visits. Ten clinicians were randomized and trained on BREATHE or the control condition. Participants were followed monthly for 3 months post-intervention. Data were collected from December 2017 - May 2019 and included surveys, lung function tests, and interviews.

RESULTS

Participants were Black/multiracial (100%) mostly female (83%) adults (mean age 45). BREATHE clinicians delivered BREATHE to all 40 participants with fidelity based on expert review of audiorecordings. While the control group reported improvements in asthma control at 1-month and 3-month follow-up, only BREATHE participants had better asthma control at each timepoint (β = 0.77; standard error (SE)[0.17]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.71; SE[0.16]; p ≤ 0.0001; β = 0.54; SE[0.15]; p = .0004), exceeding the minimally important difference. BREATHE participants also perceived greater shared decision-making occurred during the intervention visit (β = 7.39; SE[3.51]; p = .03) and fewer symptoms at follow-up (e.g., fewer nights woken, less shortness of breath and less severity of symptoms) than the controls. Both groups reported improved adherence and fewer erroneous medication beliefs.

CONCLUSION

BREATHE is a promising brief tailored intervention that can be integrated into office visits using clinicians as interventionists. Thus, BREATHE offers a pragmatic approach to improving asthma outcomes and shared decision-making in a health disparity population.

IMPACT

The study addressed the important problem of uncontrolled asthma in a high-risk vulnerable population. Compared with the dose-matched attention control condition, participants receiving the novel brief tailored shared decision-making intervention had significant improvements in asthma outcomes and greater perceived engagement in shared decision-making. Brief interventions integrated into office visits and delivered by clinicians may offer a pragmatic approach to narrowing health disparity gaps. Future studies where other team members (e.g., office nurses, social workers) are trained in shared decision-making may address important implementation science challenges as it relates to adoption, maintenance, and dissemination. TRAIL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03300752.

摘要

目的

评估一种新型简短共同决策干预措施“BREATHE”(哮喘治疗简短评估干预)的干预效果,并评估干预程序的可行性和可接受性。

设计

群组随机纵向试点研究。

方法

共有80名持续性哮喘控制不佳的成年人参与了一项试验,将“BREATHE”组(N = 40)与剂量匹配的注意力控制干预组(N = 40)进行比较。“BREATHE”是临床医生在常规门诊就诊时提供的一次性共同决策干预措施。10名临床医生被随机分配并接受“BREATHE”或对照条件的培训。干预后对参与者进行为期3个月的每月随访。数据收集时间为2017年12月至2019年5月,包括调查问卷、肺功能测试和访谈。

结果

参与者均为黑人/多种族(100%),大多数为女性(83%)成年人(平均年龄45岁)。根据对录音的专家审查,“BREATHE”组的临床医生对所有40名参与者忠实地实施了“BREATHE”干预措施。虽然对照组在1个月和3个月随访时报告哮喘控制有所改善,但只有“BREATHE”组的参与者在每个时间点的哮喘控制情况更好(β = 0.77;标准误(SE)[0.17];p≤0.0001;β = 0.71;SE[0.16];p≤0.0001;β = 0.54;SE[0.15];p = 0.0004),超过了最小重要差异。与对照组相比,“BREATHE”组的参与者还认为在干预就诊期间发生了更多的共同决策(β = 7.39;SE[3.51];p = 0.03),且随访时症状更少(如夜间醒来次数减少、呼吸急促减轻、症状严重程度降低)。两组均报告依从性有所提高,错误用药观念减少。

结论

“BREATHE”是一种有前景的简短定制干预措施,可通过临床医生作为干预者整合到门诊就诊中。因此,“BREATHE”为改善健康差异人群的哮喘结局和共同决策提供了一种实用方法。

影响

该研究解决了高危脆弱人群中哮喘控制不佳的重要问题。与剂量匹配的注意力控制条件相比,接受新型简短定制共同决策干预的参与者在哮喘结局方面有显著改善,且在共同决策中的参与感更强。整合到门诊就诊并由临床医生提供的简短干预措施可能为缩小健康差异差距提供一种实用方法。未来对其他团队成员(如门诊护士、社会工作者)进行共同决策培训的研究可能会解决与采用、维持和传播相关的重要实施科学挑战。试验注册:clinicaltrials.gov # NCT03300752

相似文献

1
Group-randomized trial of tailored brief shared decision-making to improve asthma control in urban black adults.
J Adv Nurs. 2021 Mar;77(3):1501-1517. doi: 10.1111/jan.14646. Epub 2020 Nov 29.
2
Shared decision-making in the BREATHE asthma intervention trial: A research protocol.
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Apr;75(4):876-887. doi: 10.1111/jan.13916. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
7
African Americans Want a Focus on Shared Decision-Making in Asthma Adherence Interventions.
Patient. 2020 Feb;13(1):71-81. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00382-x.
9
10

引用本文的文献

1
Tailored Adherence Incentives for Childhood Asthma Medications: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA Pediatr. 2025 May 1;179(5):500-507. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.0010.
3
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jan 29;1(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub6.
4
Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study.
Front Pharmacol. 2023 Oct 25;14:1283135. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1283135. eCollection 2023.
5
Health Communication Research Informs Inflammatory Bowel Disease Practice and Research: A Narrative Review.
Crohns Colitis 360. 2023 Apr 21;5(3):otad021. doi: 10.1093/crocol/otad021. eCollection 2023 Jul.
7
Torn between two lovers - on being a psychologist in a university medical centre.
Health Psychol Behav Med. 2023 Jan 27;11(1):2170379. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2023.2170379. eCollection 2023.
8
Suboptimal Control of Asthma Among Diverse Patients: A US Mixed Methods Focus Group Study.
J Asthma Allergy. 2022 Oct 22;15:1511-1526. doi: 10.2147/JAA.S377760. eCollection 2022.
9
Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: Perception of Asthma Control and its Management.
Pulm Ther. 2022 Jun;8(2):209-223. doi: 10.1007/s41030-022-00190-z. Epub 2022 Apr 26.

本文引用的文献

1
Working for Better Asthma Control: How Can We Improve the Dialogue Between Patients and Healthcare Professionals?
Adv Ther. 2020 Jan;37(1):1-9. doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01131-0. Epub 2019 Oct 29.
3
Design and Comprehension Testing of Tailored Asthma Control Infographics for Adults with Persistent Asthma.
Appl Clin Inform. 2019 Aug;10(4):643-654. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1693713. Epub 2019 Sep 4.
4
African Americans Want a Focus on Shared Decision-Making in Asthma Adherence Interventions.
Patient. 2020 Feb;13(1):71-81. doi: 10.1007/s40271-019-00382-x.
5
Reference range number line format preferred by adults for display of asthma control status.
J Asthma. 2020 Jun;57(6):638-644. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2019.1590597. Epub 2019 Apr 3.
7
Shared decision-making in the BREATHE asthma intervention trial: A research protocol.
J Adv Nurs. 2019 Apr;75(4):876-887. doi: 10.1111/jan.13916. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
8
A Multipronged Initiative to Improve Productivity and Patient Access in a Federally Qualified Health Center Network.
J Ambul Care Manage. 2018 Jul/Sep;41(3):225-237. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000230.
10
Shared decision-making for people with asthma.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 3;10(10):CD012330. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012330.pub2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验