Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
Generic self-management programs aim to facilitate behavioural adjustment and therefore have considerable potential for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our main objective was to collect and synthesize all data on the effectiveness of generic self-management interventions for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in terms of physical function, self-efficacy, pain intensity and physical activity. Our secondary objective was to describe the content of these interventions, by means of classification according to the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase and Psycinfo for eligible studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias were assessed by two researchers independently. Meta-analyses were only performed if the studies were sufficiently homogeneous and GRADE was used to determine the quality of evidence. We identified 20 randomized controlled trials that compared a self-management intervention to any type of control group. For post-intervention results, there was moderate quality evidence of a statistically significant but clinically unimportant effect for physical function and pain intensity, both favouring the self-management group. At follow-up, there was moderate quality evidence of a small clinically insignificant effect for self-efficacy, favouring the self-management group. All other comparisons did not indicate an effect. Classification of the behaviour change techniques showed large heterogeneity across studies. These results indicate that generic self-management interventions have a marginal benefit for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in the short-term for physical function and pain intensity and for self-efficacy in the long-term, and vary considerably with respect to intervention content. Significance: This study contributes to a growing body of evidence that generic self-management interventions have limited effectiveness for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Furthermore, this study has identified substantial differences in both content and delivery mode across self-management interventions.
LINK
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
DOCUMENT
Objective: Self-management is a core theme within chronic care and several evidence-based interventions (EBIs) exist to promote self-management ability. However, these interventions cannot be adapted in a mere copy-paste manner. The current study describes and demonstrates a planned approach in adapting EBI’s in order to promote self-management in community-dwelling people with chronic conditions. Methods: We used Intervention Mapping (IM) to increase the intervention’s fit with a new context. IM helps researchers to take decisions about whether and what to adapt, while maintaining the working ingredients of existing EBI’s. Results: We present a case study in which we used IM to adapt EBI’s to the Flemish primary care context to promote self-management in people with one or more chronic disease. We present the reader with a contextual analysis, intervention aims, and content, sequence and scope of the resulting intervention. Conclusion: IM provides an excellent framework in providing detailed guidance on intervention adaption to a new context, while preserving the essential working ingredients of EBI’s. Practice Implications: The case study is exemplary for public health researchers and practitioners as a planned approach to seek and find EBI’s, and to make adaptations.
DOCUMENT
Background—Self-management interventions are widely implemented in care for patients with heart failure (HF). Trials however show inconsistent results and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in HF patients and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. Methods and Results—Systematic literature search identified randomized trials of selfmanagement interventions. Data of twenty studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed using mixed effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced risk of time to the combined endpoint HF-related all-0.71- in Conclusions—This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death, HF-related hospitalization alone, and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting selfmanagement interventions to subgroups of HF patients, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.
DOCUMENT
Background Literature on self-management innovations has studied their characteristics and position in healthcare systems. However, less attention has been paid to factors that contribute to successful implementation. This paper aims to answer the question: which factors play a role in a successful implementation of self-management health innovations? Methods We conducted a narrative review of academic literature to explore factors related to successful implementation of self-management health innovations. We further investigated the factors in a qualitative multiple case study to analyse their role in implementation success. Data were collected from nine self-management health projects in the Netherlands. Results Nine factors were found in the literature that foster the implementation of self-management health innovations: 1) involvement of end-users, 2) involvement of local and business partners, 3) involvement of stakeholders within the larger system, 4) tailoring of the innovation, 5) utilisation of multiple disciplines, 6) feedback on effectiveness, 7) availability of a feasible business model, 8) adaption to organisational changes, and 9) anticipation of changes required in the healthcare system. In the case studies, on average six of these factors could be identified. Three projects achieved a successful implementation of a self-management health innovation, but only in one case were all factors present. Conclusions For successful implementation of self-management health innovation projects, the factors identified in the literature are neither necessary nor sufficient. Therefore, it might be insightful to study how successful implementation works instead of solely focusing on the factors that could be helpful in this process.
LINK
Background: Self-management of exacerbations in COPD patients is important to reduce exacerbation impact. There is a need for more comprehensive and individualized interventions to improve exacerbation-related selfmanagement behavior. The use of mobile health (mHealth) could help to achieve a wide variety of behavioral goals. Understanding of patients and health care providers perspectives towards using mHealth in promoting selfmanagement will greatly enhance the development of solutions with optimal usability and feasibility. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore perceptions of COPD patients and their health care providers towards using mHealth for self-management of exacerbations. Methods: A qualitative study using focus group interviews with COPD patients (n = 13) and health care providers (HCPs) (n = 6) was performed to explore perceptions towards using mHealth to support exacerbation-related selfmanagement. Data were analyzed by a thematic analysis. Results: COPD patients and HCPs perceived mostly similar benefits and barriers of using mHealth for exacerbationrelated self-management. These perceived benefits and barriers seem to be important drivers in the willingness to use mHealth. Both patients and HCPs strengthen the need for a multi-component and tailored mHealth intervention that improves patients’ exacerbation-related self-management by determining their health status and providing adequate information, decision support and feedback on self-management behavior. Most importantly, patients and HCPs considered an mHealth intervention as support to improve self-management and emphasized that it should never replace patients’ own feelings nor undermine their own decisions. In addition, the intervention should be complementary to regular contact with HCPs, as personal contact with a HCP was considered to be very important. To optimize engagement with mHealth, patients should have a positive attitude toward using mHealth and an mHealth intervention should be attractive, rewarding and safe. Conclusions: This study provided insight into perceptions of COPD patients and their HCPs towards using mHealth for self-management of exacerbations. This study points out that future mHealth interventions should focus on developing self-management skills over time by providing adequate information, decision support and feedback on self-management behavior and that mHealth should complement regular care. To optimize engagement, mHealth interventions should be attractive, rewarding, safe and tailored to the patient needs.
DOCUMENT
ABSTRACT It is unknown whether heterogeneity in effects of self-management interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) can be explained by differences in programme characteristics. This study aimed to identify which characteristics of COPD self-management interventions are most effective. Systematic search in electronic databases identified randomised trials on self-management interventions conducted between 1985 and 2013. Individual patient data were requested for meta-analysis by generalised mixed effects models. 14 randomised trials were included (67% of eligible), representing 3282 patients (75% of eligible). Univariable analyses showed favourable effects on some outcomes for more planned contacts and longer duration of interventions, interventions with peer contact, without log keeping, without problem solving, and without support allocation. After adjusting for other programme characteristics in multivariable analyses, only the effects of duration on all-cause hospitalisation remained. Each month increase in intervention duration reduced risk of all-cause hospitalisation (time to event hazard ratios 0.98, 95% CI 0.97–0.99; risk ratio (RR) after 6 months follow-up 0.96, 95% CI 0.92–0.99; RR after 12 months follow-up 0.98, 95% CI 0.96–1.00). Our results showed that longer duration of self-management interventions conferred a reduction in allcause hospitalisations in COPD patients. Other characteristics are not consistently associated with differential effects of self-management interventions across clinically relevant outcomes.
DOCUMENT
Background: Self-management support is considered an important component in the physiotherapeutic treatment of people with chronic low back pain. The stratified blended physiotherapy intervention e-Exercise Low Back Pain is an example of a self-management intervention. More insight may contribute to improving blended interventions to stimulate self-management after treatment and thus hopefully prevent chronicity and/or relapses in patients with chronic low back pain. Objectives: The aim of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of the self-management behaviour after a physiotherapist guided blended self-management intervention in people with chronic low back pain. Design: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews nested within a randomized controlled trial on the (cost-)effectiveness of e-Exercise Low Back Pain was conducted. Method: Thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcriptions. A hybrid process of both deductive and inductive approaches was used. Results: After 12 interviews, data saturation was reached. Analysis of the data yielded six themes related to self-management behaviour: illness beliefs, coping, cognitions, social support and resource utilization, physiotherapeutic involvement and motivation. Conclusions: In our study the majority of the participants seemed to show adequate self-management behaviour when experiencing low back pain. Most participants first try to gain control over their low back pain themselves when experiencing a relapse before contacting the physiotherapist. Participants struggle in continuing health behaviour in pain free periods between relapses of low back pain. Physiotherapists are recommended to encourage long-term behaviour change. Additionally, better facilitation by the physiotherapist or additional functionalities in the app to stimulate social support might have a useful contribution.
LINK
Abstract Aim: To gain insight into the relationship between self-management abilities (taking initiatives, investment behaviour, variety, multifunctionality, self-efficacy, positive frame of mind) and physical, psychological and social frailty. Design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: 145 community-dwelling older people receiving home-care completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic factors, the Self-Management-Ability-Scale and the Tilburg Frailty Indicator. After determining correlations, sequential multiple linear regression analyses were executed. Results: All self-management abilities are negatively associated with physical frailty; five (except multifunctionality) are negatively associated with psychological frailty. Variety in resources and positive frame of mind are negatively associated with social frailty. Sociodemographic characteristics, chronic diseases and self-management abilities together significantly explain participants’physical (34.9%), psychological (21.4%) and social (43.9%) frailty. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and chronic diseases, the self-management abilities together significantly explain 11 per cent of psychological and 6.8 per cent of social frailty. Having a positive frame of mind significantly negatively influences social frailty.
DOCUMENT
