自我管理幹預可有效減少哮喘患者的醫療保健使用並改善生活質量
作者:
小柯機器人發布時間:2020/8/20 19:27:15
英國曼徹斯特大學Alexander Hodkinson團隊對自我管理幹預措施減少哮喘患者醫療使用和改善生活質量的效果進行了分析。2020年8月18日,該研究發表在《英國醫學雜誌》上。
為了比較不同的自我管理模式(多學科病例管理、定期支持的自我管理和最低限度支持的自我管理)和自我監測模式與常規護理和教育相比,哪種模式可有效減少哮喘患者的醫療保健使用並提高生活質量,研究組在Medline、Cochrane圖書館、Embase等大型資料庫中檢索2000年1月至2019年4月的文獻,篩選出涉及不同自我管理模式治療哮喘的隨機對照試驗,進行系統回顧和網絡薈萃分析。主要結局是醫療保健使用(住院或急診就診)和生活質量。
1178篇引文共包括105項試驗,涉及27767名參與者。就醫療保健使用而言,多學科病例管理和定期支持的自我管理均顯著優於常規護理。就生活質量而言,只有定期支持的自我管理顯著優於常規護理。對於包括青少年/兒童(5-18歲)在內的試驗,只有定期支持的自我管理在醫療保健使用和生活質量中顯著獲益。多學科病例管理和定期支持的自我管理在減少基線嚴重哮喘患者的醫療保健使用方面最有效。
研究結果表明,定期支持的自我管理可以減少不同嚴重程度哮喘患者的醫療資源使用,並改善生活質量。
附:英文原文
Title: Self-management interventions to reduce healthcare use and improve quality of life among patients with asthma: systematic review and network meta-analysis
Author: Alexander Hodkinson, Peter Bower, Christos Grigoroglou, Salwa S Zghebi, Hilary Pinnock, Evangelos Kontopantelis, Maria Panagioti
Issue&Volume: 2020/08/18
Abstract: Objective To compare the different self-management models (multidisciplinary case management, regularly supported self-management, and minimally supported self-management) and self-monitoring models against usual care and education to determine which are most effective at reducing healthcare use and improving quality of life in asthma.
Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Data sources Medline, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, EconLit, Embase, Health Economics Evaluations Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, PsycINFO, and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to April 2019.
Review methods Randomised controlled trials involving the different self-management models for asthma were included. The primary outcomes were healthcare use (hospital admission or emergency visit) and quality of life. Summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% credible intervals were estimated using bayesian network meta-analysis with random effects. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed.
Results From 1178 citations, 105 trials comprising 27767 participants were included. In terms of healthcare use, both multidisciplinary case management (SMD –0.18, 95% credible interval 0.32 to 0.05) and regularly supported self-management (–0.30, 0.46 to 0.15) were significantly better than usual care. For quality of life, only regularly supported self-management (SMD 0.54, 0.11 to 0.96) showed a statistically significant benefit compared with usual care. For trials including adolescents/children (age 5-18 years), only regularly supported self-management showed statistically significant benefits (healthcare use: SMD –0.21, 0.40 to 0.03; quality of life: 0.23, 0.03 to 0.48). Multidisciplinary case management (SMD –0.32, 0.50 to 0.16) and regularly supported self-management (–0.32, 0.53 to 0.11) were most effective at reducing healthcare use in patients with symptoms of severe asthma at baseline.
Conclusions This network meta-analysis indicates that regularly supported self-management reduces the use of healthcare resources and improves quality of life across all levels of asthma severity. Future healthcare investments should provide support that offer reviews totalling at least two hours to establish self-management skills, reserving multidisciplinary case management for patients with complex disease.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m2521
Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2521