Search

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives involving patients with chronic respiratory disease (CRD) are rare. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients with CRD, carers and interested citizens regarding the relevance and need for a PPI network and suggestions for its implementation. Methods: A qualitative study based on focus groups was conducted. Recruitment occurred through invitations on social media platforms and to patients who have participated in previous asthma studies of the team. Three focus groups were conducted, via video conference, using a semi‐structured guide. Thematic analysis was performed by two independent researchers and discussed with the extended team. Results: Fifteen patients with CRD, one carer and one interested citizen (13 females, median 36 (range: 18–72) years) participated. All participants acknowledged the importance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in being integrated. Participants acknowledged the importance of their involvement in several phases of the research cycle. The main aim identified for this network was to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. Participants regarded the integration of patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals from different scientific areas as relevant. The use of digital platforms to attract members and support the work, together with group dynamics and regular meetings, were some of the most relevant practical considerations for implementing the network. The identified facilitators for their engagement were sharing experiences, researchers' and healthcare professionals' support and feedback and schedule flexibility. The identified barriers included the amount of time dedicated, low health/digital literacy and the potential detachment of nondiagnosed patients or those with low symptom impact in daily life. Conclusion: Patients, carers and citizens acknowledged the relevance of implementing a collaborative network and demonstrated interest in active participation in every stage of the health research cycle. A deeper knowledge of the barriers and facilitators identified in this study could support implementing these initiatives in Portugal. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was designed by a research team that included one patient with asthma and one carer. They were specifically involved in building the study protocol and the interview guide. They also gave feedback regarding the electronic consent form and the short sociodemographic questionnaire created, namely by removing noncontributing words or phrases and rewording expressions. The lay summary was written by another patient with asthma. All participants of this study were invited to implement and integrate the ConectAR network—a collaborative network of research in respiratory health. Public Summary: In Portugal, chronic respiratory patients do not have an active role as 'coinvestigators'. This study aimed to acknowledge if patients and citizens considered a patient and public involvement network useful, whose main purpose would be to facilitate communication between patients and researchers. A study based on online group interviews was carried out with patients with chronic respiratory diseases and interested citizens, both recruited on social media platforms. Participants considered that bringing together patients, carers, researchers and healthcare professionals is valuable because sharing different experiences and perspectives may help patients to improve their daily lives and increase research quality. In conclusion, patients agree that implementing a collaborative network with researchers and healthcare professionals and participating in the health research cycle is quite preponderant. Acknowledging what can help and deter this network may be beneficial to implementing this type of initiative in Portugal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Older patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are particularly susceptible to exacerbations that may be associated with incorrect use of inhalers. Educational programs with inhaler technique review seem to be effective, but no studies have addressed their cost‐effectiveness in older adult patients. The objective was to perform a cost‐effectiveness analysis of education programs in older patients and estimate the cost benefit of applying such a program in Portugal. DESIGN: We developed a decision tree analysis from a healthcare perspective, according to intervention costs and the exacerbation rates and costs described in a previous meta‐analysis. A sensitivity analysis of worst and best case scenarios was performed to estimate thresholds for intervention affordable limits, as well as cost‐saving estimations and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for a Portuguese scenario. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We estimated cost‐effectiveness thresholds applicable in all settings and performed a sensitivity analysis of a theoretical intervention model in all patients including an inhaler technique review at an annual appointment with a doctor and a nurse. RESULTS: In the best case scenario, the intervention affordable budget could be up to almost 1800€ (US $1585.24) per patient per year. Mean intervention‐associated savings in Portugal would be 311.88€ (US $274.68) per patient per year, representing annual savings up to €131 million (US $150 million) for the whole health system, already including intervention costs. ICERs for Portugal vary between 93.73€ (US $82.55) and 437.43€ (US $385.25) per exacerbation avoided. CONCLUSION: A model of an intervention program with an inhaler technique review in older adult patients suggests that this intervention is cost‐effective and can generate significant savings. J Am Geriatr Soc 1–7, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of inhaler education programs on clinical outcomes and exacerbation rates in older adults with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Setting and Participants: Older adults with asthma or COPD, either in primary or secondary health care and pharmacy setting. Measurements: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Central databases according to the main eligibility criteria for inclusion: systematic reviews, meta‐analysis, clinical trials and quasi‐experimental studies; participants aged 65 and older; education on inhaler technique and reporting of disease control and exacerbation rates. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations scale for quality assessment and used a random‐effect model with Mantel–Haenszel adjustment to perform a meta‐analysis. Results: We included 8 studies (4 randomized, 4 quasi‐experimental) with a total of 1,812 participants. The most frequent type of intervention was physical demonstration of inhaler technique, training with placebo devices. Five studies showed significant reduction in exacerbation rates (pooled risk ratio=0.71, 95% confidence interval=0.59–0.86; p < .001), although effect on disease control and quality of life showed high discrepancy in the reported results, and all randomized studies revealed uncertainty in their risk of bias assessment. Conclusion: All interventions seemed to improve inhaler performance and clinically relevant outcomes, but a placebo device could be the most effective. There is evidence that interventions reduce exacerbation risk in older adults, although to an overall moderate degree. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:57–66, 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]