Search

Abstract Background In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization established a number of key recommendations such as educational activities especially within primary care practices (PCPs) which are a key component of this strategy. This paper aims to examine the educational activities of PCPs during COVID-19 pandemic and to identify the factors associated with these practices across 38 countries. Methods A "Patient Education (PE)" score was created based on responses to six items from the self-reported questionnaire among PCPs (n = 3638) compiled by the PRICOV-19 study. Statistical analyses were performed on 3638 cases, with PCPs with missing PE score values were excluded. Results The PE score features a mean of 2.55 (SD = 0.68) and a median of 2.50 (2.16 – 3.00), with a maximum of 4.00, and varies quite widely between countries. Among all PCPs characteristics, these factors significantly increase the PE score: the payment system type (with a capitation payment system or another system compared to the fee for service), the perception of average PCP with patients with chronic conditions and the perception of adequate governmental support. Conclusion The model presented in this article is still incomplete and requires further investigation to identify other configuration elements favorable to educational activities. However, the results already highlight certain levers that will enable the development of this educational approach appropriate to primary care.

Abstract Introduction Recently, the literature has promoted the use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice as a means to foster patient engagement. However, conditions necessary to support the use of PROMs to encourage asthma patient engagement are not clearly defined. Therefore, we sought (1) to explore the current and ideal use of PROMs by healthcare professionals (HP) in specialized asthma management centers in French‐speaking Belgium and (2) to understand under which conditions the use of PROMs contributes to patient engagement. Methods We undertook a mixed‐methods study with both anonymous online survey and in‐person qualitative semi‐structured interviews conducted with HPs to understand their perspectives on the routine use of PROMs. HPs were recruited from 16 asthma centers (French‐speaking Belgium) identified via the Belgian Respiratory Society. Results Of the 170 HPs identified from the 16 participating centers, 51 (30%) responded to the survey (n = 51) and 11 completed semi‐structured interviews. 53% (27/51) of the surveyed HPs reported using PROMs primarily for asthma monitoring and clinical research while all reported that PROMs should primarily be used in practice to facilitate communication with the patient and to address neglected aspects of the care relationship such as the psychosocial aspects of the disease. The qualitative interviews revealed avenues for moving from a medical‐centered and utilitarian use of PROMs to a use serving patient engagement. This would require HPs to go beyond their current representation of PROMs, to use instruments offering a more holistic image of the patient, to incorporate PROMs into a digital tool and to integrate PROMs in a patient education process. Conclusion The main findings of this study suggest relevant avenues for using PROMs in ways that support patient engagement.

Introduction Although asthma is a common disease, its diagnosis remains a challenge in clinical practice with both over- and underdiagnosis. Here, we performed a prospective observational study investigating the value of symptom intensity scales alone or combined with spirometry and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FENO) to aid in asthma diagnosis. Methods Over a 38-month period we recruited 303 untreated patients complaining of symptoms suggestive of asthma (wheezing, dyspnoea, cough, sputum production and chest tightness). The whole cohort was split into a training cohort (n=166) for patients recruited during odd months and a validation cohort (n=137) for patients recruited during even months. Asthma was diagnosed either by a positive reversibility test (≥12% and ≥200 mL in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)) and/or a positive bronchial challenge test (provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 ≤8 mg·mL−1). In order to assess the diagnostic performance of symptoms, spirometric indices and FENO, we performed receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and multivariable logistic regression to identify the independent factors associated with asthma in the training cohort. Then, the derived predictive models were applied to the validation cohort. Results 63% of patients in the derivation cohort and 58% of patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed as being asthmatic. After logistic regression, wheezing was the only symptom to be significantly associated with asthma. Similarly, FEV1 (% pred), FEV1/forced vital capacity (%) and FENO were significantly associated with asthma. A predictive model combining these four parameters yielded an area under the curve of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66–0.84) in the training cohort and 0.73 (95% CI 0.65–0.82) when applied to the validation cohort. Conclusion Combining a wheezing intensity scale with spirometry and FENO may help in improving asthma diagnosis accuracy in clinical practice.