A shared decision-making intervention between health care professionals and individuals undergoing Pulmonary Rehabilitation: An iterative development process with qualitative methods.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) services typically offer programmes to support individuals living with COPD make rehabilitation choices that best meet their needs, however, uptake remains low. Shared Decision-Making (SDM; e.g., Patient Decision Aids (PtDA)) interventions increase informed and values-based decision-making between individuals and healthcare professionals (HCPs). We aimed to develop an intervention to facilitate PR SDM which was acceptable to individuals living with COPD and PR HCPs. METHODS: An iterative development process involving qualitative methods was adopted. Broad overarching frameworks included: complex intervention development framework, the multiple stakeholder decision making support model, and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Development included: assembling a steering group, outlining the scope for the PtDA, collating data to inform the PtDA design, prototype development, alpha testing with individuals with COPD (n = 4) and PR HCPs (n = 8), PtDA finalisation, and design and development of supporting components. This took nine months. RESULTS: The PtDA was revised six times before providing an acceptable, comprehensible, and usable format for all stakeholders. Supporting components (decision coaching training and a consultation prompt) were necessary to upskill PR HCPs in SDM and implement the intervention into the PR pathway. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a three-component SDM intervention (a PtDA, decision coaching training for PR healthcare professionals, and a consultation prompt) to support individuals living with COPD make informed and values-based decision about PR together with their PR healthcare professional. Clear implementation strategies are outlined which should support its integration into the PR pathway.

The Training to Improve Dyspnoea Study- Patient Experiences of Using a High Frequency Airway Oscillating Device.

Introduction: The High Frequency Airway Oscillating device (HFAO) was developed to help patients with COPD feel less breathless through flow resistive respiratory muscle training and fixed rate oscillations. Previous work has demonstrated that this device can improve inspiratory muscle strength over and above a sham device. Both groups improved their breathlessness and preserved clinical benefits though there were no statistically significant differences seen over and above the sham device. It is important to understand patient perceptions of using a device and how this may influence their treatment and therefore a qualitative analysis was conducted to understand participant experiences of a HFAO device. Methods: This was an exploratory qualitative analysis involving participants recruited to the Training to Improve Dyspnoea (TIDe) study. Participants completed a satisfaction survey and were invited to take part in a focus group. Focus groups were conducted by a researcher independent to the randomised controlled trial. Data was analysed independently by two researchers using inductive thematic analysis, and themes/sub-themes were agreed jointly. Data is presented in themes and sub themes and triangulated with survey response data. Results: Fourteen participants were recruited to two focus groups (71% male, mean [SD] age 64[9] years). The key themes were patient selection, device use, and investment. Patient selection explores the disease characteristics, emotional impact and management of care. Device use explores the device prescription and usage, routine and lifestyle and effectiveness. Investment covers accessibility, understanding, benefits vs participation and overall perceptions of the device. Conclusion: This research demonstrates the complexity of device interventions and that key considerations should be given to patient selection, the device use itself and, the time and cost investment required for participants to successfully implement the device into daily life.

Tailored psychological intervention for anxiety or depression in COPD (TANDEM): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TANDEM multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial evaluated whether a tailored psychological intervention based on a cognitive behavioural approach for people with COPD and symptoms of anxiety and/or depression improved anxiety or depression compared with usual care (control). METHODS: People with COPD and moderate to very severe airways obstruction and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale subscale scores indicating mild to moderate anxiety (HADS-A) and/or depression (HADS-D) were randomised 1.25:1 (242 intervention and 181 control). Respiratory health professionals delivered the intervention face-to-face over 6-8 weeks. Co-primary outcomes were HADS-A and HADS-D measured 6 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months included: HADS-A and HADS-D (12 months), Beck Depression Inventory II, Beck Anxiety Inventory, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, social engagement, the EuroQol instrument five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), smoking status, completion of pulmonary rehabilitation, and health and social care resource use. RESULTS: The intervention did not improve anxiety (HADS-A mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.40-0.21) or depression (HADS-D mean difference -0.66, 95% CI -1.39-0.07) at 6 months. The intervention did not improve any secondary outcomes at either time-point, nor did it influence completion of pulmonary rehabilitation or healthcare resource use. Deaths in the intervention arm (13/242; 5%) exceeded those in the control arm (3/181; 2%), but none were associated with the intervention. Health economic analysis found the intervention highly unlikely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: This trial has shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that this cognitive behavioural intervention delivered by trained and supervised respiratory health professionals does not improve psychological comorbidity in people with advanced COPD and depression or anxiety.

Exploring the Presence of Implicit Bias Amongst Healthcare Professionals Who Refer Individuals Living with COPD to Pulmonary Rehabilitation with a Specific Focus Upon Smoking and Exercise.

Background: We are developing a shared decision-making intervention for individuals with COPD who are deciding between Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) programme options. Previously, we identified Healthcare Professional (HCP) beliefs about the characteristics of COPD individuals as a barrier to PR conversations. Beliefs can lead to implicit biases which influence behaviour. To inform our shared decision-making intervention, we aimed to measure the presence of implicit bias amongst HCPs who refer individuals with COPD to PR. Methods: We utilised the Implicit Association Test to measure HCPs response times when categorising words related to smoking or exercise (eg stub, run) to matching concepts or evaluations of concepts (eg "smoking, unpleasant" or "exercise, pleasant") and unmatching concepts or evaluations of concepts (eg "smoking, pleasant" or "exercise, unpleasant"). We approached HCPs across the UK. Following consent, we collected demographic data and then administered the test. The primary outcome was the standardised mean difference in response times from the matching and unmatching categorisations (D4-score), measured using a one-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. We explored the relationship between HCP demographics and their D4-scores using Spearman Rho correlation analysis and logistic regression. Results: Of 124 HCPs screened, 104 (83.9%) consented. Demographic data were available for 88 (84.6%). About 68.2% were female and most (28.4%) were in the 45-54 years age category. Test data were available for 69 (66.3%) participants. D4-scores ranged from 0.99 to 2.64 indicating implicit favouring of matching categorisation (MD-score = 1.69, SDD-score = 0.38, 95% CID-score 1.60-1.78, p < 0.05). This was significantly different from zero, z = -7.20, p < 0.05, with a large effect size (r = 0.61, (28)). No demographic predictors of implicit bias were identifiable. Conclusion: HCPs demonstrated negative bias towards smoking and positive bias towards exercising. Since implicit bias impacts behaviour, we plan to develop intervention components (eg decision coaching training) to enable HCPs to fully and impartially support shared decision-making for a menu of PR options.

Systematic review of shared decision-making interventions for people living with chronic respiratory diseases.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) supports patients to make informed and value-based decisions about their care. We are developing an intervention to enable healthcare professionals to support patients' pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) decision-making. To identify intervention components we needed to evaluate others carried out in chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs). We aimed to evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on patient decision-making (primary outcome) and downstream health-related outcomes (secondary outcome). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review using the risk of bias (Cochrane ROB2, ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tools. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, PEDRO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, ISRCTN were search through to 11th April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Trials evaluating SDM interventions in patients living with CRD using quantitative or mixed methods were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence. A narrative synthesis, with reference to The Making Informed Decisions Individually and Together (MIND-IT) model, was undertaken. RESULTS: Eight studies (n=1596 (of 17 466 citations identified)) fulfilled the inclusion criteria.Five studies included components targeting the patient, healthcare professionals and consultation process (demonstrating adherence to the MIND-IT model). All studies reported their interventions improved patient decision-making and health-related outcomes. No outcome was reported consistently across studies. Four studies had high risk of bias, three had low quality of evidence. Intervention fidelity was reported in two studies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest developing an SDM intervention including a patient decision aid, healthcare professional training, and a consultation prompt could support patient PR decisions, and health-related outcomes. Using a complex intervention development and evaluation research framework will likely lead to more robust research, and a greater understanding of service needs when integrating the intervention within practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020169897.

A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study.

Background: Despite the variety of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes for patients living with COPD, uptake remains low. To improve this, it is recommended that health professionals engage patients in informed decisions about pulmonary rehabilitation. Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates informed and value-based decision-making between patients and health professionals. This protocol describes the development and evaluation of a complex SDM intervention for patients living with COPD, who are referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and their pulmonary rehabilitation health professional. Methods and analysis: We are developing a complex SDM intervention involving a patient decision aid (PtDA) and a decision coaching workshop. Prior to patient recruitment, pulmonary rehabilitation health professionals will attend the workshop. Upon referral to pulmonary rehabilitation, patients will receive the PtDA to support their decision-making prior to and during their pulmonary rehabilitation assessment with a health professional. The intervention will be evaluated in a one-arm exploratory study to investigate its feasibility and acceptability for patients and health professionals, with an integrated fidelity assessment. The primary outcome is recruitment feasibility, data collection feasibility and intervention fidelity. Secondary outcomes include routine pulmonary rehabilitation data, decisional conflict, patient activation, intervention attendance/attrition and patient and pulmonary rehabilitation health professional experience of the intervention. Quantitative outcomes will be evaluated using the most appropriate statistical test, dependent on the sample distribution. Qualitative outcomes will be evaluated using reflexive thematic analysis. Fidelity will be assessed using the Observer OPTION 5 scale. Conclusion: This intervention will provide structure for an informed and values-based decision-making consultation between a patient with COPD and a pulmonary rehabilitation health professional with the potential for optimising pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

British Thoracic Society survey of rehabilitation to support recovery of the post-COVID-19 population.

OBJECTIVE: A proportion of those recovering from COVID-19 are likely to have significant and ongoing symptoms, functional impairment and psychological disturbances. There is an immediate need to develop a safe and efficient discharge process and recovery programme. Established rehabilitation programmes are well placed to deliver a programme for this group but will most likely need to be adapted for the post-COVID-19 population. The purpose of this survey was to rapidly identify the components of a post-COVID-19 rehabilitation assessment and elements of a successful rehabilitation programme that would be required to deliver a comprehensive service for those post-COVID-19 to inform service delivery. DESIGN: A survey comprising a series of closed questions and a free-text comment box allowing for a qualitative analysis. SETTING: Online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Multiprofessional clinicians across specialties were invited to take part. RESULTS: 1031 participants responded from a broad range of specialties. There was overwhelming support for an early posthospital discharge recovery programme to advise patients about the management of fatigue (95% agreed/strongly agreed), breathlessness (94%) and mood disturbances (including symptoms of anxiety and depression, 92%). At the time point of 6-8 weeks, an assessment was considered important, focusing on a broad range of possible symptoms and supporting a return to work. Recommendations for the intervention described a holistic programme focusing on symptom management, return of function and return to employment. The free-text comments added depth to the survey and the need 'not to reinvent the wheel' but rather adapt well-established rehabilitation services to individually tailor needs-based care with continued learning for service development. CONCLUSION: The responses indicate a huge interest and the urgent need to establish a programme to support and mitigate the long-term impact of COVID-19 by optimising and individualising existing rehabilitation programmes.