Nebulizer Use by Black and Latinx Adults with Moderate to Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Generally, a short-acting beta-2 agonist (SABA) delivered via metered-dose inhaler (MDI) is recommended for quick relief of asthma symptoms. However, in the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) pragmatic trial, 67% of patients reported having used a nebulizer for SABA administration. OBJECTIVE: To understand preferences, experiences, and decision making regarding the use of nebulizers in Black and Latinx adults with uncontrolled asthma. METHODS: We interviewed 40 of the 1,201 PREPARE patients employing a matrix analysis. Those interviewed were Black (n = 20) and Latinx (n = 20) adults with uncontrolled asthma seeking primary or specialty care in clinics throughout the United States. Data were analyzed used a Rapid Assessment Procedures qualitative methodology, informed by grounded theory. RESULTS: Substudy participants, on average, reported using a nebulizer 3.5 times/wk. Daily use was common, and frequency ranged from less than daily to up to 6 times daily. Nearly all participants reported a longstanding history of nebulizer use. Participants tended to use their nebulizer at home, and some shared it with others in the home. Many reported preferring a nebulizer over an MDI for relief of severe symptoms and to avoid emergency room visits or hospitalizations. The extent to which cost affected nebulizer use varied among participants. CONCLUSIONS: Despite asthma guideline recommendations that MDIs be used rather than nebulizers for SABA administration, nebulizer use was common among PREPARE study participants. Clinicians should explore patients' history and experiences with nebulizer use as part of evaluation of asthma control.

Evolution of a research team: the patient partner perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a movement toward the inclusion of patient partners or advisors as part of the research team in all funded studies, few publications have discussed patient engagement from the patient partners' perspective. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted by independent qualitative researchers to collect and summarize the experiences and perspectives of the 16 Patient Partners (PPs) on the study team for PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE), a large, pragmatic study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. RESULTS: This paper, authored by the PPs themselves, summarizes qualitative interview findings. The journey of the PREPARE PPs began with a desire to learn more about asthma and advocate for other individuals with asthma. Many challenges, including intimidation and lack of trust, were overcome as the research team prioritized building a comfortable environment in which PPs' lived experiences, opinions, and cultural beliefs are valued, and in which PP voices are centered and respected. Over time, the PPs gained confidence in expressing ideas and feedback, and in taking ownership of their role as valued members of the research team. The PP experience has had tremendous personal and professional impact on the PPs themselves, while also modeling a change in the way researchers and PPs relate to and partner with each other. CONCLUSION: The partnership between PPs and researchers in the PREPARE study has elevated the PP role from external advisors to integral and empowered members of a collective research team, and the partnership developed and evolved over time.

Patients and caregivers who have lived with a condition have an important and unique perspective researchers should consider. To this end, patients and caregivers have expanded their involvement in the design and conduct of clinical research, joining research teams and being engaged in the research process from start to finish. Researchers have reported on the positive impact that these "patient partners" or "patient advisors" have on research. But few papers report on the impact on the patient partners/advisors from being on a research team.Here we report the lived experiences of the 16 Patient Partners who served on the research team for a large study of 1200 African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) adults with asthma. These Patient Partners offered their input over 7 years, spanning from study design, study conduct, understanding results, to sharing results.To understand the Patient Partners' experiences, we conducted interviews asking about their journey on the research team. Motivations and reasons they became Patient Partners Initial experiences with the research team If and how over time, they became comfortable and developed confidence If and how the research team made them feel valued and respected The personal and professional impact of being a Patient Partner Their advice to researchers and fellow patients considering including or joining as Patient Partners or advisors By reporting the perspectives of these 16 Patient Partners, we hope to support continued movement toward broader and better inclusion of patients and caregivers on research teams.

A randomized, open-label, pragmatic study to assess reliever-triggered inhaled corticosteroid in African American/Black and Hispanic/Latinx adults with asthma: Design and methods of the PREPARE trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma prevalence, morbidity, and mortality disproportionately impact African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) communities. Adherence to daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), recommended by asthma guidelines in all but the mildest cases of asthma, is generally poor. As-needed ICS has shown promise as a patient-empowering asthma management strategy, but it has not been rigorously studied in AA/B or H/L patients or in a real-world setting. Design and Aim The PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief (PREPARE) Study is a randomized, open-label, pragmatic study which aims to assess whether a patient-guided, reliever-triggered ICS strategy called PARTICS (Patient-Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled CorticoSteroid) can improve asthma outcomes in AA/B and H/L adult patient populations. In designing and implementing the study, the PREPARE research team has relied heavily on advice from AA/B and H/L Patient Partners and other stakeholders. Methods PREPARE is enrolling 1200 adult participants (600 AA/Bs, 600H/Ls) with asthma. Participants are randomized to PARTICS + Usual Care (intervention) versus Usual Care (control). Following a single in-person enrollment visit, participants complete monthly questionnaires for 15 months. The primary endpoint is annualized asthma exacerbation rate. Secondary endpoints include asthma control; preference-based quality of life; and days lost from work, school, or usual activities. Discussion The PREPARE study features a pragmatic design allowing for the real-world assessment of a patient-centered, reliever-triggered ICS strategy in AA/B and H/L patients. Outcomes of this study have the potential to offer powerful evidence supporting PARTICS as an effective asthma management strategy in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from asthma morbidity and mortality.

Concordance of Expert and Parental Opinion about Hypospadias Surgical Outcome Is Severity Dependent.

INTRODUCTION: Hypospadias is a male congenital condition where the opening of the urethral meatus is not located in the typical anatomical position. It has been a challenge for empirical studies to ascertain the level of concordance of opinion among parents and urologists with regard to surgical outcomes according to hypospadias severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parents of children who had undergone hypospadias repair were recruited for this study (n = 104). A set of questionnaires that included some items with Likert scale were created to evaluate postsurgical satisfaction by parents and urologists. SAHLSA-50, a validated instrument for adult Spanish-speaking adults, was used to assess health literacy. Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement and Chi Square "Goodness of Fit" Test was used to determine probability of satisfaction. FINDINGS: Concordance on the level of satisfaction with surgical outcomes for Type cases I was slight (κ = 0.20; CI 95% 0-0.60), for Type II cases was moderate (κ = 0.54; CI 95% 0.13-0.94), and for Type III cases was substantial (κ = 0.62; CI 95% 0-0.56). However, the probability of satisfaction did not change according to severity (Chi Square "Goodness of Fit" Test; parents, p = 0.84; pediatric urologists, p = 0.92). These results cannot be explained by parental health literacy according to SAHLSA-50 test scores. CONCLUSION: The level of concordance of opinion among parents and urologists with regard to their level of satisfaction with surgical outcomes is related to hypospadias severity, whereby the greatest level of concordance of opinion was achieved among most severe cases. This study underscores the need for longer follow-up to properly assess satisfaction with hypospadias repair, especially for the less severe forms of the condition.