Prof Nicola Jane Roberts N.Roberts@napier.ac.uk
Professor
Self management in asthma and COPD?
Roberts, Nicola Jane; Younis, Izaba; Partridge, Martyn R
Authors
Izaba Younis
Martyn R Partridge
Abstract
Background: Self-management (SM) improves outcome in long-term conditions. SM is strongly recommended in asthma guidelines. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) the evidence in favour is increasing. Use is poorly implemented in asthma with only a few studies as to why. Less is known about healthcare professionals views’ about SM in COPD.
Methods: A questionnaire study of healthcare professionals views’ on SM plans in asthma and COPD was sent to respiratory SpRs and consultants in North London and a GP+nurse in 31 GP practices in one PCT. This abstract summarises the quantitative results.
Results: 54/176 questionnaires were returned from 18/55 GPs, 13/41 nurses, 13/63 SpRs and 10/17 consultants. Over 90% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the British asthma guideline recommendation on SM. Two-thirds occasionally and 10% never issued action plans. Respondents reported discussing SM with 76% of their patients. GPs estimated that 34% of patients received plans; consultants estimated the highest (70%). 90% believed that patients should receive a plan during a hospital admission. 25% of doctors reported undertaking SM education with patients compared with 61.5% of nurses. 80% occasionally/never asked to see a patient’s plan which they had not issued. 52% believed they had witnessed improved outcomes using SM, of which 75% always/sometimes gave plans to patients. Nurses most commonly issued asthma plans (61.5%) compared with SpRs (38.5%) and GPs (27.8%). Overall, 18/54 (33%) of respondents felt they lacked confidence constructing an asthma plan, of which 8/18 (44%) were GPs and 6/18 (33%) were nurses. 80% of respondents strongly/agree with NICE recommendation on SM in COPD but 40% did not feel plans were as valuable as in asthma. 54% discussed COPD SM with patients. Respondents believed 40% of patients received COPD plans with higher levels reported by consultants (67%). Again nurses issue most of the plans (69.2% vs 61.5% in asthma), but GPs were more involved in SM in COPD (50%) than in asthma (33.3%).
Conclusions: Despite strong support for guideline recommendation, implementation was patchy. Consultants reported greater involvement but, overall, nurses were the most likely to give action plans. A third lack confidence in completing an action plan. In COPD there was greater GP involvement.
Citation
Roberts, N. J., Younis, I., & Partridge, M. R. Self management in asthma and COPD?. Presented at British Thoracic Society winter meeting, London
Presentation Conference Type | Conference Abstract |
---|---|
Conference Name | British Thoracic Society winter meeting |
Online Publication Date | Dec 1, 2009 |
Publication Date | 2009-12 |
Deposit Date | Aug 3, 2023 |
Print ISSN | 0040-6376 |
Publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 64 |
Issue | suppl 4 |
Pages | A206 |
Series ISSN | 1468-3296 |
Publisher URL | https://thorax.bmj.com/content/64/Suppl_4/A159 |
You might also like
The Academic Respiratory Research Alliance network
(2024)
Presentation / Conference Contribution
The “what, why, and how?” of story completion in health services research: a scoping review
(2024)
Journal Article
What do pulmonary rehabilitation participants want their educational sessions to comprise of? Exploring a participant-centered approach to designing pulmonary rehabilitation education
(2024)
Presentation / Conference Contribution
Does health literacy in respiratory patients impact on their rating of important topics for education in pulmonary rehabilitation?
(2024)
Presentation / Conference Contribution
Downloadable Citations
About Edinburgh Napier Research Repository
Administrator e-mail: repository@napier.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2025
Advanced Search