e-Vita: design of an innovative approach to COPD disease management in primary care through eHealth application.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a highly complex disease to manage as patients show great variation in symptoms and limitations in daily life. In the last decade self-management support of COPD has been introduced as an effective method to improve quality and efficiency of care, and to reduce healthcare costs. Despite the urge to change the organisation of health care and the potential of eHealth to support this, large-scale implementation in daily practice remains behind, especially in the Netherlands. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a multilevel study, called e-Vita, to investigate different organisational implementation methods of a self-management web portal to support and empower patients with COPD in three different primary care settings. Using a parallel cohort design, the clinical effects of the web portal will be assessed using an interrupted times series (ITS) study design and measured according to changes in health status with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). The different implementations and net benefits of self-management through eHealth on clinical outcomes will be evaluated from human, organisational, and technical perspectives. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge this is the first study to combine different study designs that enable simultaneous investigation of clinical effects, as well as effects of different organisational implementation methods whilst controlling for confounding effects of the organisational characteristics. We hypothesize that an implementation with higher levels of personal assistance, and integrated in an existing care program will result in increased use of and satisfaction with the platform, thereby increasing health status and diminishing exacerbation and hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4098 (31-07-2013).

e-Vita: design of an innovative approach to COPD disease management in primary care through eHealth application.

BACKGROUND: COPD is a highly complex disease to manage as patients show great variation in symptoms and limitations in daily life. In the last decade self-management support of COPD has been introduced as an effective method to improve quality and efficiency of care, and to reduce healthcare costs. Despite the urge to change the organisation of health care and the potential of eHealth to support this, large-scale implementation in daily practice remains behind, especially in the Netherlands. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a multilevel study, called e-Vita, to investigate different organisational implementation methods of a self-management web portal to support and empower patients with COPD in three different primary care settings. Using a parallel cohort design, the clinical effects of the web portal will be assessed using an interrupted times series (ITS) study design and measured according to changes in health status with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ). The different implementations and net benefits of self-management through eHealth on clinical outcomes will be evaluated from human, organisational, and technical perspectives. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge this is the first study to combine different study designs that enable simultaneous investigation of clinical effects, as well as effects of different organisational implementation methods whilst controlling for confounding effects of the organisational characteristics. We hypothesize that an implementation with higher levels of personal assistance, and integrated in an existing care program will result in increased use of and satisfaction with the platform, thereby increasing health status and diminishing exacerbation and hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4098 (31-07-2013).

Feasibility and applicability of the paper and electronic COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) in primary care: a clinimetric study.

Three questionnaires are recommended in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease, of which two are the more comprehensive assessments: the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire. Both are carefully designed high-quality questionnaires, but information on the feasibility for routine use is scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the time to complete the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test and the clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and the acceptability of the questionnaires. Furthermore, the agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was explored. The time to complete the electronic versions of the questionnaires was 99.6 [IQR 74; 157] vs. 97.5 [IQR 68; 136] seconds for clinical clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease questionnaire and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test, respectively. The difference in time to complete the questionnaire was not significant. The two questionnaires did not differ in "easiness to complete" or "importance of issues raised in questionnaires". Electronic vs. paper versions revealed high agreement (ICC CCQ = 0.815 [0.712; 0.883] and ICC CAT = 0.751 [0.608; 0.847]) between the administration methods. Based on this study it can be concluded that both questionnaires are equally suitable for use in routine clinical practice, because they are both quick to complete and have a good acceptability by the patient. Agreement between electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires was high, so use of electronic versions is justified.COPD: QUESTIONNAIRES EQUALLY SUITABLE FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Two questionnaires commonly used to manage chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are equally suitable for routine primary care. Researchers in The Netherlands, led by Janwillem Kocks from the University Medical Center Groningen, administered both the COPD assessment test (CAT) and the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ) to 95 patients with the lung disease. These two tests are the most comprehensive assessments recommended by the global initiative for obstructive lung disease for guiding treatment decisions. The researchers found that both tests took approximately 95-100 s on average. Both tests were also equally easy to complete and provided similar types of information. Most patients said they had no preference for either one, and they filled out both electronic and paper versions of the questionnaires in much the same way. The authors conclude that both tests seem fine for routine use.