Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness: a mixed-methods evidence synthesis

M. Maddocks, L. Brighton, M. Farquhar, S. Booth, Sophie E. Miller, Lara Klass, I. Tunnard, D. Yi, W. Gao, S. Bajwah, W. Man, I. Higginson
{"title":"Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness: a mixed-methods evidence synthesis","authors":"M. Maddocks, L. Brighton, M. Farquhar, S. Booth, Sophie E. Miller, Lara Klass, I. Tunnard, D. Yi, W. Gao, S. Bajwah, W. Man, I. Higginson","doi":"10.3310/HSDR07220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom of many advanced diseases, affecting around 2 million people in the UK. Breathlessness increases with disease progression and often becomes chronic or refractory. Breathlessness-triggered services that integrate holistic assessment and specialist palliative care input as part of a multiprofessional approach have been developed for this group, offering tailored interventions to support self-management and reduce distress.\n \n \n \n The aim was to synthesise evidence on holistic breathlessness services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness. The objectives were to describe the structure, organisation and delivery of services, determine clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability, identify predictors of treatment response, and elicit stakeholders’ evidence-based priorities for clinical practice, policy and research.\n \n \n \n The mixed-methods evidence synthesis comprised three components: (1) a systematic review to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of holistic breathlessness services; (2) a secondary analysis of pooled individual data from three trials to determine predictors of clinical response; and (3) a transparent expert consultation (TEC), comprising a stakeholder workshop and an online consensus survey, to identify stakeholders’ priorities.\n \n \n \n Thirty-seven papers reporting on 18 holistic breathlessness services were included in the systematic review. Most studies enrolled people with thoracic cancer, were delivered over 4–6 weeks, and included breathing training, relaxation techniques and psychological support. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant reductions in the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) distress due to breathlessness, significant reductions in the Hospital Anxiety and Depressions Scale (HADS) depression scores, and non-significant reductions in the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) mastery and HADS anxiety, favouring the intervention. Recipients valued education, self-management interventions, and expertise of the staff in breathlessness and person-centred care. Evidence for cost-effectiveness was limited and inconclusive. The responder analysis (n = 259) revealed baseline CRQ mastery and NRS distress to be strong predictors of the response to breathlessness services assessed by these same measures, and no significant influence from baseline breathlessness intensity, patient diagnosis, lung function, health status, anxiety or depression. The TEC elicited 34 priorities from stakeholders. Seven priorities received high agreement and consensus, reflecting stakeholders’ (n = 74) views that services should be person-centred and multiprofessional, share their breathlessness management skills with others, and recognise the roles and support needs of informal carers.\n \n \n \n The evidence synthesis draws predominantly from UK services and may not be generalisable to other settings. Some meta-analyses were restricted by reporting biases and statistical heterogeneity.\n \n \n \n Despite heterogeneity in composition and delivery, holistic breathlessness services are highly valued by recipients and can lead to significant improvements in the distress caused by breathlessness and depression. Outcomes of improved mastery and reduced distress caused by breathlessness are not influenced by patient diagnosis, lung function or health status. Stakeholders highlighted the need for improved access to person-centred, multiprofessional breathlessness services and support for informal carers.\n \n \n \n Our research suggests that key therapeutic components of holistic breathlessness services be considered in clinical practice and models of delivery and educational strategies to address stakeholders’ priorities tested.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057508.\n \n \n \n The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery programme. Matthew Maddocks, Wei Gao and Irene J Higginson are supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London; Matthew Maddocks is supported by a NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-009), William D-C Man is supported by the NIHR CLAHRC Northwest London and Irene J Higginson holds a NIHR Emeritus Senior Investigator Award.\n","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/HSDR07220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom of many advanced diseases, affecting around 2 million people in the UK. Breathlessness increases with disease progression and often becomes chronic or refractory. Breathlessness-triggered services that integrate holistic assessment and specialist palliative care input as part of a multiprofessional approach have been developed for this group, offering tailored interventions to support self-management and reduce distress. The aim was to synthesise evidence on holistic breathlessness services for people with advanced disease and chronic or refractory breathlessness. The objectives were to describe the structure, organisation and delivery of services, determine clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability, identify predictors of treatment response, and elicit stakeholders’ evidence-based priorities for clinical practice, policy and research. The mixed-methods evidence synthesis comprised three components: (1) a systematic review to determine the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of holistic breathlessness services; (2) a secondary analysis of pooled individual data from three trials to determine predictors of clinical response; and (3) a transparent expert consultation (TEC), comprising a stakeholder workshop and an online consensus survey, to identify stakeholders’ priorities. Thirty-seven papers reporting on 18 holistic breathlessness services were included in the systematic review. Most studies enrolled people with thoracic cancer, were delivered over 4–6 weeks, and included breathing training, relaxation techniques and psychological support. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant reductions in the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) distress due to breathlessness, significant reductions in the Hospital Anxiety and Depressions Scale (HADS) depression scores, and non-significant reductions in the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) mastery and HADS anxiety, favouring the intervention. Recipients valued education, self-management interventions, and expertise of the staff in breathlessness and person-centred care. Evidence for cost-effectiveness was limited and inconclusive. The responder analysis (n = 259) revealed baseline CRQ mastery and NRS distress to be strong predictors of the response to breathlessness services assessed by these same measures, and no significant influence from baseline breathlessness intensity, patient diagnosis, lung function, health status, anxiety or depression. The TEC elicited 34 priorities from stakeholders. Seven priorities received high agreement and consensus, reflecting stakeholders’ (n = 74) views that services should be person-centred and multiprofessional, share their breathlessness management skills with others, and recognise the roles and support needs of informal carers. The evidence synthesis draws predominantly from UK services and may not be generalisable to other settings. Some meta-analyses were restricted by reporting biases and statistical heterogeneity. Despite heterogeneity in composition and delivery, holistic breathlessness services are highly valued by recipients and can lead to significant improvements in the distress caused by breathlessness and depression. Outcomes of improved mastery and reduced distress caused by breathlessness are not influenced by patient diagnosis, lung function or health status. Stakeholders highlighted the need for improved access to person-centred, multiprofessional breathlessness services and support for informal carers. Our research suggests that key therapeutic components of holistic breathlessness services be considered in clinical practice and models of delivery and educational strategies to address stakeholders’ priorities tested. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057508. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery programme. Matthew Maddocks, Wei Gao and Irene J Higginson are supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London; Matthew Maddocks is supported by a NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-009), William D-C Man is supported by the NIHR CLAHRC Northwest London and Irene J Higginson holds a NIHR Emeritus Senior Investigator Award.
为晚期疾病和慢性或难治性呼吸困难患者提供整体服务:混合方法证据综合
呼吸困难是许多晚期疾病的常见和令人痛苦的症状,影响着英国约200万人。呼吸困难随着疾病的进展而增加,通常会成为慢性或难治性疾病。已经为这一群体开发了将整体评估和专业姑息治疗投入相结合的呼吸引发服务,作为多专业方法的一部分,提供量身定制的干预措施,以支持自我管理和减少痛苦。目的是综合证据,为晚期疾病和慢性或难治性呼吸困难患者提供全面的呼吸困难服务。目的是描述服务的结构、组织和提供,确定临床有效性、成本效益和可接受性,确定治疗反应的预测因素,并引出利益相关者对临床实践、政策和研究的循证优先事项。混合方法证据综合包括三个组成部分:(1)系统审查,以确定整体呼吸困难服务的临床有效性、成本效益和可接受性;(2) 对三项试验的汇总个体数据进行二次分析,以确定临床反应的预测因素;以及(3)透明的专家咨询,包括利益攸关方研讨会和在线共识调查,以确定利益攸关方的优先事项。系统综述中包括了37篇关于18项整体呼吸困难服务的论文。大多数研究招募了患有癌症的患者,在4-6周内进行,包括呼吸训练、放松技术和心理支持。荟萃分析显示,呼吸困难导致的数字评定量表(NRS)痛苦显著降低,医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS)抑郁评分显著降低,慢性呼吸系统疾病问卷(CRQ)掌握和HADS焦虑无显著降低,有利于干预。接受者重视教育、自我管理干预以及工作人员在呼吸困难和以人为中心的护理方面的专业知识。成本效益的证据有限,而且没有结论。响应者分析(n = 259)显示,基线CRQ掌握和NRS痛苦是通过这些相同措施评估的呼吸困难服务反应的有力预测因素,基线呼吸困难强度、患者诊断、肺功能、健康状况、焦虑或抑郁对其没有显著影响。技术执行委员会从利益攸关方那里获得了34个优先事项。七个优先事项得到了高度一致和共识,反映了利益攸关方(n = 74)认为服务应以人为中心,多专业,与他人分享他们的呼吸困难管理技能,并认识到非正式护理人员的作用和支持需求。证据综合主要来自英国的服务,可能无法推广到其他环境。一些荟萃分析受到报告偏差和统计异质性的限制。尽管在组成和提供方面存在异质性,但整体呼吸困难服务受到接受者的高度重视,并可显著改善呼吸困难和抑郁造成的痛苦。提高掌握能力和减少呼吸困难引起的痛苦的结果不受患者诊断、肺功能或健康状况的影响。利益攸关方强调,需要改善以人为中心、多专业的呼吸困难服务,并为非正式护理人员提供支持。我们的研究表明,在临床实践、交付模式和教育策略中,应考虑整体呼吸困难服务的关键治疗组成部分,以解决利益相关者的优先事项。本研究注册为PROSPERO CRD42017057508。国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付计划。Matthew Maddocks、Wei Gao和Irene J Higginson得到了南伦敦NIHR应用健康研究与护理领导力合作组织(CLAHRC)的支持;Matthew Maddocks获得了NIHR职业发展奖学金(CDF-2017-009)的支持,William D-C Man获得了NIHRCLAHRC西北伦敦的支持,Irene J Higginson获得了NIRR荣誉退休高级研究员奖。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信