Delivery of supported self-management in remote asthma reviews: A systematic rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced health care systems globally to adapt quickly to remote modes of health care delivery, including for routine asthma reviews. A core component of asthma care is supporting self-management, a guideline-recommended intervention that reduces the risk of acute attacks, and improves asthma control and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore context and mechanisms for the outcomes of clinical effectiveness, acceptability and safety of supported self-management delivery within remote asthma consultations. DESIGN: The review followed standard methodology for rapid realist reviews. An External Reference Group (ERG) provided expert advice and guidance throughout the study. We systematically searched four electronic databases and, with ERG advice, selected 18 papers that explored self-management delivery during routine asthma reviews. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: Health care professional delivery of supported self-management for asthma patients during remote (specifically including telephone and video) consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data were extracted using Context-Mechanism-Outcome (C-M-O) configurations and synthesised into overarching themes using the PRISMS taxonomy of supported self-management as a framework to structure the findings. RESULTS: The review findings identified how support for self-management delivered remotely was acceptable (often more acceptable than in-person consultations), and was a safe and effective alternative to face-to-face reviews. In addition, remote delivery of supported self-management was associated with; increased patient convenience, improved access to and attendance at remote reviews, and offered continuity of care. DISCUSSION: Remote delivery of supported self-management for asthma was generally found to be clinically effective, acceptable, and safe with the added advantage of increasing accessibility. Remote reviews could provide the core content of an asthma review, including remote completion of asthma action plans. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the option of remote delivery of routine asthma care for those who have this preference, and offer healthcare professionals guidance on embedding supported self-management into remote asthma reviews. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and public contribution was provided by a representative of the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) patient and public involvement (PPI) group. The PPI representative reviewed the findings, and feedback and comments were considered. This lead to further interpretations of the data which were included in the final manuscript.

Patient and public involvement workshop to shape artificial intelligence-supported connected asthma self-management research.

Digital interventions with artificial intelligence (AI) can potentially support people with asthma to reduce the risk of exacerbation. Engaging patients throughout the development process is essential to ensure usability of the intervention for the end-users. Using our Connected for Asthma (C4A) intervention as an exemplar, we explore how patient involvement can shape a digital intervention. Seven Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) colleagues from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research participated in four advisory workshops to discuss how they would prefer to use/interact with AI to support living with their asthma, the benefit and caveats to use the AI that incorporated asthma monitoring and indoor/outdoor environmental data. Discussion focussed on the three most wanted use cases identified in our previous studies. PPI colleagues wanted AI to support data collection, remind them about self-management tasks, teach them about asthma environmental triggers, identify risk, and empower them to confidently look after their asthma whilst emphasising that AI does not replace clinicians. The discussion informed the key components in the next C4A interventions, including the approach to interacting with AI, the technology features and the research topics. Attendees highlighted the importance of considering health inequities, the presentation of data, and concerns about data accuracy, data privacy, security and ownership. We have demonstrated how patient roles can shift from that of 'user' (the traditional 'tester' of a digital intervention), to a co-design partner who shapes the next iteration of the intervention. Technology innovators should seek practical and feasible strategies to involve PPI colleagues throughout the development cycle of a digital intervention; supporting researchers to explore the barriers, concerns, enablers and advantages of implementing digital healthcare.

Understanding interventions delivered in the emergency department targeting improved asthma outcomes beyond the emergency department: an integrative review.

OBJECTIVES: The emergency department (ED) represents a place and moment of opportunity to provide interventions to improve long-term asthma outcomes, but feasibility, effectiveness and mechanisms of impact are poorly understood. We aimed to review the existing literature on interventions that are delivered in the ED for adults and adolescents, targeting asthma outcomes beyond the ED, and to code the interventions according to theory used, and to understand the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. METHODS: We systematically searched seven electronic databases and research registers, and manually searched reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative studies that reported on interventions delivered in the ED which aimed to improve asthma outcomes beyond management of the acute exacerbation, for adolescents or adults were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and informed study interpretation. Theory was coded using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Findings were summarised by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 12 articles were included, representing 10 unique interventions, including educational and medication-based changes (6 randomised controlled trials and 4 non-randomised studies). Six trials reported statistically significant improvements in one or more outcome measures relating to long-term asthma control, including unscheduled healthcare, asthma control, asthma knowledge or quality of life. We identified limited use of theory in the intervention designs with only one intervention explicitly underpinned by theory. There was little reporting on facilitators or barriers, although brief interventions appeared more feasible. CONCLUSION: The results of this review suggest that ED-based asthma interventions may be capable of improving long-term outcomes. However, there was significant variation in the range of interventions, reported outcomes and duration of follow-up. Future interventions would benefit from using behaviour change theory, such as constructs from the Theoretical Domains Framework. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42020223058.

Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with asthma: a co-produced mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: When COVID-19 was declared a pandemic there was concern that people living with asthma were at high-risk of poor outcomes. We aimed to explore the psychological impact of living with asthma in the United Kingdom during the pandemic. METHODS AND MEASURES: Our mixed methods study, co-designed with patient and public involvement colleagues, included an online survey to detect anxiety/depression/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and health beliefs; and qualitative interviews. We recruited 849 participants for the survey and interviewed 26 between May and June 2020. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The survey identified that 77% of respondents were experiencing symptoms of anxiety, 77% were experiencing symptoms of depression, and PTSD was of concern for 61%. Two-thirds of respondents felt the pandemic had changed how they managed their asthma (n = 568, 66.9%), and over half felt that they had not been given adequate health information about COVID-19 (n = 495, 58.3%). Qualitative interviews identified five themes (1) health communication, (2) interaction with healthcare, (3) COVID-19-related concerns, (4) impact on mental health, and (5) behaviour change. CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was prevalent in people with asthma during the early stage of the pandemic. Understanding this may be useful to inform future healthcare/policy planning.

Patient and public involvement in research: the need for budgeting PPI staff costs in funding applications.

BACKGROUND: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) groups are becoming more established as collaborators with academic researchers and institutions to ensure that research is important and relevant to end users, and to identify areas that might have ethical considerations, as well as to advise on solutions. The National Institute for Health and Care Research UK Standards for Public Involvement in Research embody best practice for PPI, including support and learning opportunities that build confidence and skills for members of the public to play an invaluable and mutually productive role in research. However, the pivotal role of research and professional services (management and administrative) staff within academic institutions for sustaining and making this involvement successful is often overlooked. MAIN BODY: It takes significant effort to develop and sustain effective PPI in research. The six UK Standards for Public Involvement highlight the need for consistent, inclusive, well-governed and mutually respectful working relationships to sustain effective PPI contributions in health research. Productivity across a team of lay and academic members requires organisation and experience of implementing these standards by a dedicated PPI team, yet advice on PPI finances is usually focused on costs for patient panel members, and budgets in funding applications rarely consider the wider PPI team behind this involvement. As an exemplar, we reflect on how the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) has developed a dedicated PPI Platform, with guidance for how PPI should be embedded throughout the research lifecycle, and detailed information to support the costing of PPI in funding applications. AUKCAR's work with established researchers, as well as Early Career Researchers and PhD students, is at the heart of a campaign to raise awareness of the importance of PPI in effective research planning. CONCLUSION: Focusing attention on the staff behind best practice involvement in health research may stimulate a much-needed discussion to ensure flourishing PPI capacity, with significant patient and public benefit. With adaptation, the PPI expertise within AUKCAR can be translated more widely.

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) is important for high-quality research. It makes research more relevant to patients, and makes the results more useful for the health service. To make patient involvement effective, we need skilled staff with experience of involving lay members in research, as well as engaging researchers in PPI activities. There is little guidance about staff time needed to recruit and support lay members and researchers properly. This means that we still do not understand the true cost of including patients and the public in research, and we often under cost this in funding applications. As an example, we reflect on how the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research (AUKCAR) has organised staff to support for its patient involvement. We give some thoughts on how to cost PPI staff time in funding applications. By focusing attention on the team behind the lay volunteers, we hope to encourage a much-needed discussion about the support involved, and deliver more patient benefits. The AUKCAR experience can be adapted to other research topics and contexts.

Effectiveness and perceptions of using templates in long-term condition reviews: a systematic synthesis of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Review templates are commonly used in long-term condition (LTC) consultations to standardise care for patients and promote consistent data recording. However, templates may affect interactions during the review and, potentially, inhibit patient-centred care. AIM: To systematically review the literature about the impact that LTC review templates have on process and health outcomes, and the views of health professionals and patients on using review templates in consultations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Parallel qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews. METHOD: Following Cochrane methodology, nine databases were searched (1995-2019; updated July 2020) for clinical trials and qualitative studies of LTC templates in healthcare settings. Duplicate selection, risk-of-bias assessment, and data extraction were performed. The quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted in parallel, and findings synthesised narratively. RESULTS: In total, 12 qualitative and 14 quantitative studies were included (two studies reported both qualitative and quantitative data, and were included in both analyses). Review templates were well used, but the only study to assess health outcomes showed no effect. Templates can improve documentation of key measures and act as a reminder tool; however, they can restrict the review process, and risk health professionals' agendas being prioritised over those of patients. Templates may also limit opportunities to discuss individuals' concerns about living with their condition and act as a barrier to providing patient-centred care. CONCLUSION: Future research should evaluate health, as well as process, outcomes. The potential benefits of templates in improving documentation should be balanced against concerns that 'tick boxes' may override patient agendas, unless templates are designed to promote patient-centred care.