Assessing efficacy of a web-based smoking cessation tool - QuitAdvisorMD: Protocol for a practice-based, clustered, randomized control trial.

Background: Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death, yet physicians inconsistently provide best-practices cessation advice to smokers. Point-of-care digital health tools can prompt and assist physicians to provide improved smoking cessation counseling. QuitAdvisorMD is a comprehensive web-based counseling and management digital health tool designed to guide smoking cessation counseling at the point-of-care. The tool enables clinicians to assess patient readiness to change and then deliver stage-appropriate interventions, while also incorporating Motivational Interviewing techniques. We present the research protocol to assess the efficacy of QuitAdvisorMD to change frequency and quality of smoking cessation counseling and its effect on patient quit rates. Methods: A practice-based, clustered, randomized controlled trial will be used to evaluate QuitAdvisorMD. Cluster design will be used where patients are clustered within primary care practices and practices will be randomized to either the intervention (QuitAdvisorMD) or control group. The primary outcome is frequency and quality of clinician initiated smoking cessation counseling. Secondary outcomes include, 1) changes in physician knowledge, skills and perceived self-efficacy in providing appropriate stage-based smoking cessation counseling and 2) patient quit attempts. Analyses will be conducted to determine pre- and post-test individual clinician outcomes and between intervention and control group practices for patient outcomes. Conclusion: Results from this study will provide important insights regarding the ability of an integrated, web-based counseling and management tool (QuitAdvisorMD) to impact both the quality and efficacy of smoking cessation counseling in primary care settings.

Environmental management of asthma in clinical practice: Results from the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Background: The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines emphasize environmental control as an integral part of asthma management; however, limited national-level data exist on how clinicians implement environmental control recommendations. Objective: We analyzed data on clinicians' self-reported use of recommended environmental control practices in a nationally representative sample (n = 1645) of primary care physicians, asthma specialists, and advanced practice providers from the National Asthma Survey of Physicians, a supplemental questionnaire to the 2012 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Methods: We examined clinician and practice characteristics as well as clinicians' decisions and strategies regarding environmental trigger assessment and environmental control across provider groups. Regression modeling was used to identify clinician and practice characteristics associated with implementation of guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of specialists assessed asthma triggers at home, school, and/or work than primary care or advanced practice providers (almost always: 53.6% vs 29.4% and 23.7%, respectively, P < .001). Almost all clinicians (>93%) recommended avoidance of secondhand tobacco smoke, whereas recommendations regarding cooking appliances (eg, proper ventilation) were infrequent. Although assessment and recommendation practices differed between clinician groups, modeling results showed that clinicians who reported almost always assessing asthma control were 5- to 6-fold more likely to assess environmental asthma triggers. Use of asthma action plans was also strongly associated with implementation of environmental control recommendations. Conclusions: Environmental assessment and recommendations to patients varied among asthma care providers. High adherence to other key guideline components, such as assessing asthma control, was associated with environmental assessment and recommendation practices on environmental control.

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group.

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

Use of National Asthma Guidelines by Allergists and Pulmonologists: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about specialist-specific variations in guideline agreement and adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess similarities and differences between allergists and pulmonologists in adherence to cornerstone components of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Third Expert Panel Report. METHODS: Self-reported guideline agreement, self-efficacy, and adherence were assessed in allergists (n = 134) and pulmonologists (n = 99) in the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians. Multivariate models were used to assess if physician and practice characteristics explained bivariate associations between specialty and "almost always" adhering to recommendations (ie, ≥75% of the time). RESULTS: Allergists and pulmonologists reported high guideline self-efficacy and moderate guideline agreement. Both groups "almost always" assessed asthma control (66.2%, standard error [SE] 4.3), assessed school/work asthma triggers (71.3%, SE, 3.9), and endorsed inhaled corticosteroids use (95.5%, SE 2.0). Repeated assessment of the inhaler technique, use of asthma action/treatment plans, and spirometry were lower (39.7%, SE 4.0; 30.6%, SE 3.6; 44.7%, SE 4.1, respectively). Compared with pulmonologists, more allergists almost always performed spirometry (56.6% vs 38.6%, P = .06), asked about nighttime awakening (91.9% vs 76.5%, P = .03) and emergency department visits (92.2% vs 76.5%, P = .03), assessed home triggers (70.5% vs 52.6%, P = .06), and performed allergy testing (61.8% vs 21.3%, P < .001). In multivariate analyses, practice-specific characteristics explained differences except for allergy testing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, allergists and pulmonologists adhere to the asthma guidelines with notable exceptions, including asthma action plan use and inhaler technique assessment. Recommendations with low implementation offer opportunities for further exploration and could serve as targets for increasing guideline uptake.

Primary care clinician adherence with asthma guidelines: the National Asthma Survey of Physicians.

Background and objectives: Although primary care clinicians provide >60% of U.S. asthma care, no nationally representative study has examined variation in adherence among primary care groups to four cornerstone domains of the Expert Panel Report-3 asthma guidelines: assessment/monitoring, patient education, environmental assessment, and medications. We used the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to compare adherence by family/general medicine practitioners (FM/GM), internists, pediatricians and Community Health Center mid-level clinicians (CHC). Methods: Adherence was self-reported (n = 1355 clinicians). Adjusted odds of almost always adhering to each recommendation (≥75% of the time) were estimated controlling for clinician/practice characteristics, and agreement and self-efficacy with guideline recommendations. Results: A higher percentage of pediatricians adhered to most assessment/monitoring recommendations compared to FM/GM and other groups (e.g. 71.6% [SE 4.0] almost always assessed daytime symptoms versus 50.6% [SE 5.1]-51.1% [SE 5.8], t-test p < 0.05) but low percentages from all groups almost always performed spirometry (6.8% [SE 2.0]-16.8% [SE 4.7]). Pediatricians were more likely to provide asthma action/treatment plans than FM/GM and internists. Internists were more likely to assess school/work triggers than pediatricians and CHC (environmental assessment). All groups prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for daily control (84.0% [SE 3.7]-90.7% [SE 2.5]) (medications). In adjusted analyses, pediatric specialty, high self-efficacy and frequent specialist referral were associated with high adherence. Conclusions: Pediatricians were more likely to report high adherence than other clinicians. Self- efficacy and frequent referral were also associated with adherence. Adherence was higher for history-taking recommendations and lower for recommendations involving patient education, equipment and expertise.

Clinician Agreement, Self-Efficacy, and Adherence with the Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma.

BACKGROUND: The 2007 Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma provide evidence-based recommendations to improve asthma care. Limited national-level data are available about clinician agreement and adherence to these guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician-reported adherence with specific guideline recommendations, as well as agreement with and self-efficacy to implement guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians data for 1412 primary care clinicians and 233 asthma specialists about 4 cornerstone guideline domains: asthma control, patient education, environmental control, and pharmacologic treatment. Agreement and self-efficacy were measured using Likert scales; 2 overall indices of agreement and self-efficacy were compiled. Adherence was compared between primary care clinicians and asthma specialists. Logistic regression models assessed the association of agreement and self-efficacy indices with adherence. RESULTS: Asthma specialists expressed stronger agreement, higher self-efficacy, and greater adherence with guideline recommendations than did primary care clinicians. Adherence was low among both groups for specific core recommendations, including written asthma action plan (30.6% and 16.4%, respectively; P < .001); home peak flow monitoring, (12.8% and 11.2%; P = .34); spirometry testing (44.7% and 10.8%; P < .001); and repeated assessment of inhaler technique (39.7% and 16.8%; P < .001). Among primary care clinicians, greater self-efficacy was associated with greater adherence. For specialists, self-efficacy was associated only with increased odds of spirometry testing. Guideline agreement was generally not associated with adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement with and adherence to asthma guidelines was higher for specialists than for primary care clinicians, but was low in both groups for several key recommendations. Self-efficacy was a good predictor of guideline adherence among primary care clinicians but not among specialists.

Asthma outcomes: symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory symptoms are commonly used to assess the impact of patient-centered interventions. OBJECTIVE: At the request of National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and other federal agencies, an expert group was convened to propose which measurements of asthma symptoms should be used as a standardized measure in future clinical research studies. METHODS: Asthma symptom instruments were classified as daily diaries (prospectively recording symptoms between research visits) or retrospective questionnaires (completed at research visits). We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and a search for articles that cited key studies describing development of instruments. We classified outcome instruments as either core (required in future studies), supplemental (used according to study aims and standardized), or emerging (requiring validation and standardization). This work was discussed at an NIH-organized workshop in March 2010 and finalized in September 2011. RESULTS: Four instruments (3 daily diaries, 1 for adults and 2 for children; and 1 retrospective questionnaire for adults) were identified. Minimal clinically important differences have not been established for these instruments, and validation studies were only conducted in a limited number of patient populations. Validity of existing instruments may not be generalizable across racial-ethnic or other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of symptoms should be a core asthma outcome measure in clinical research. However, available instruments have limitations that preclude selection of a core instrument. The working group participants propose validation studies in diverse populations, comparisons of diaries versus retrospective questionnaires, and evaluations of symptom assessment alone versus composite scores of asthma control.

Management of acute asthma exacerbations.

Asthma exacerbations can be classified as mild, moderate, severe, or life threatening. Criteria for exacerbation severity are based on symptoms and physical examination parameters, as well as lung function and oxygen saturation. In patients with a peak expiratory flow of 50 to 79 percent of their personal best, up to two treatments of two to six inhalations of short-acting beta2 agonists 20 minutes apart followed by a reassessment of peak expiratory flow and symptoms may be safely employed at home. Administration using a hand-held metered-dose inhaler with a spacer device is at least equivalent to nebulized beta2 agonist therapy in children and adults. In the ambulatory and emergency department settings, the goals of treatment are correction of severe hypoxemia, rapid reversal of airflow obstruction, and reduction of the risk of relapse. Multiple doses of inhaled anticholinergic medication combined with beta2 agonists improve lung function and decrease hospitalization in school-age children with severe asthma exacerbations. Intravenous magnesium sulfate has been shown to significantly increase lung function and decrease the necessity of hospitalization in children. The administration of systemic corticosteroids within one hour of emergency department presentation decreases the need for hospitalization, with the most pronounced effect in patients with severe exacerbations. Airway inflammation can persist for days to weeks after an acute attack; therefore, more intensive treatment should be continued after discharge until symptoms and peak expiratory flow return to baseline.

Medical Therapy for Asthma: Updates from the NAEPP Guidelines.

Proper care of patients with asthma involves the triad of systematic chronic care plans, self-management support, and appropriate medical therapy. Controller medications (inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta2 agonists, and leukotriene receptor antagonists) are the foundation of care for persistent asthma and should be taken daily on a long-term basis to achieve and maintain control of symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids are the preferred controller medication; studies have demonstrated that when inhaled corticosteroids are used consistently, they improve asthma control more effectively than any other single long-term control medication. Combining long-acting beta2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids is effective and safe when inhaled corticosteroids alone are insufficient, and such combinations are an alternative to increasing the dosage of inhaled corticosteroids. For patients with mild persistent asthma, leukotriene receptor antagonists are an alternative, second-line treatment option. They are easy to use, have high rates of compliance, and can provide good symptom control in many patients. Leukotriene receptor antagonists can also be used as an adjunctive therapy with inhaled corticosteroids, but for persons 12 years and older the addition of long-acting beta2 agonists is preferred. Inhaled short-acting beta2 agonists are the most effective therapy for rapid reversal of airflow obstruction and prompt relief of asthmatic symptoms. Increasing the use of short-acting beta2 agonists or using them more than two days per week or more than two nights per month generally indicates inadequate control of asthma and the need to initiate or intensify anti-inflammatory therapy. Oral systemic corticosteroids should be used to treat moderate to severe asthma exacerbations.

How can primary care cross the quality chasm?

The chasm between knowledge and practice decried by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) is the result of other chasms that have not been addressed. They include the chasm between what we know and what we need to know to improve care; the chasm between those who provide primary care and those who do not fund, study, support, or publish practical primary care studies; and the chasm between research and quality improvement (QI). These chasms are a result of problematic concepts, attitudes, traditions, time frames, and financing approaches among the various participants. If we are to facilitate the production and use of the knowledge needed for primary care to cross IOM's chasm, major changes are needed. These changes include the following: (1) admission by all primary care professions that we have quality problems that require our unified attention and action; (2) conversion of the paradigm from "translate research into practice" to "optimizing health and health care through research and QI"; (3) development and facilitation of more partnerships among clinicians, researchers, and care delivery leaders for engaged scholarship in both research and QI; (4) modification of the agendas and methods of funders and researchers so they emphasize the problems of patients and patient care and support practical time frames and research designs; and (5) facilitation by funders and journals of the dissemination and implementation of lessons from QI and practical research.

Impact of lifestyle intervention on lost productivity and disability: improving control with activity and nutrition.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention (LI) in reducing work loss and disability days. METHODS: One year randomized controlled trial of health plan members (n = 147) with type 2 diabetes and obesity. Members were randomized to modest-cost LI or usual care (UC). Outcomes were group differences in cumulative days either missed at work or with disability using Mann-Whitney U-tests and Poisson regression models. RESULTS: LI reduced the risk of workdays lost by 64.3% (P

Overview of changes to asthma guidelines: diagnosis and screening.

The Expert Panel Report 3 of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program represents a major advance in the approach to asthma care by emphasizing the monitoring of clinically relevant aspects of care and the importance of planned primary care, and by providing patients practical tools for self-management. Treatment of asthma should be guided by a new system of classification that assesses severity at initial evaluation and control at all subsequent visits. Asthma severity is determined by current impairment (as evidenced by impact on day-to-day activities) and risk of future exacerbations (as evidenced by frequency of oral systemic corticosteroid use), and allows categorization of disease as intermittent, persistent-mild, persistent-moderate, and persistent-severe. Initial treatment is guided by the disease-severity category. The degree of control is also determined by the analysis of current impairment and future risk. Validated questionnaires can be used for following the impairment domain of control with patients whose asthma is categorized as "well controlled," "not well controlled," and "very poorly controlled." Decisions about medication adjustment and planned follow-up are based on the category of disease control. Whereas a stepwise approach for asthma management continues to be recommended, the number of possible steps has increased.

Patterns of asthma control perception in adolescents: associations with psychosocial functioning.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to identify and describe the patterns of asthma control perception in relation to actual symptom reports in adolescents and to compare the group with accurate control perception with those of inaccurate perception in relationship to sociodemographic characteristics, illness-related factors, and psychosocial factors. METHODS: A sample of 126 adolescents from 13 through 20 years of age participated in the study. Patterns of control perception were constructed based on participants' rating of their perception of asthma control and self-reported asthma symptoms using Latent Class Analysis. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and multinomial logistic regressions were computed for group comparisons. RESULTS: Participants were classified into four groups according to the patterns of control perception. Accurate groups were divided into either the well-controlled (62%) or the poorly-controlled group (7%), and inaccurate groups were manifested inaccuracy either with nighttime symptoms (25%) or daytime symptoms (6%). Minority participants (p < 0.001) or those with low socioeconomic status (p < 0.001) were more likely to be represented in the inaccurate group than their counterparts. The well-controlled accurate group consistently reported higher asthma-related knowledge (p = 0.02), more positive attitude toward asthma (p < 0.001), fewer barriers to self-management (p = 0.04), and higher quality of life (p < 0.001) than the inaccurate group. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that accuracy of asthma control perception can be classified into four criteria based on patterns of various asthma symptoms. Adolescents' tendency toward underperception was evident. The inaccurate groups are at greater risk for psychosocial impairments. This study underscores the importance of an intervention that improves the accuracy of asthma control perception in adolescents while promoting psychosocial well-being among adolescents with inaccurate perception.