COPD评估测试(CAT)在初级保健咨询中的应用:一项随机对照试验。

Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Helen C Marsden, Steve Holmes, Peter Kardos, Roger Escamilla, Roberto Dal Negro, June Roberts, Gilbert Nadeau, Mathieu Vasselle, David A Leather, Paul Jones
{"title":"COPD评估测试(CAT)在初级保健咨询中的应用:一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Helen C Marsden, Steve Holmes, Peter Kardos, Roger Escamilla, Roberto Dal Negro, June Roberts, Gilbert Nadeau, Mathieu Vasselle, David A Leather, Paul Jones","doi":"10.4104/pcrj.2013.00001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the aims of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is to aid communication between the physician and patient about the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the patient's life.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate the impact of the CAT on the quality of primary care consultations in COPD patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary care physicians across Europe conducted six consultations with standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors). Physicians were randomised to see the patient with the completed CAT (CAT+ arm) or without (no CAT arm) during the consultation. These were videoed and independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address patient-specific issues such as depression (sub-score A); review standard COPD issues such as breathlessness (sub-score B); their understanding of the case (understanding score); and their overall performance. The primary endpoint was the global score (sub-scores A+B; scale range 0-40).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 165 physicians enrolled in the study and carried out six consultations each; 882 consultations were deemed suitable for analysis. No difference was seen between the arms in the global score (no CAT arm 20.3; CAT+ arm 20.7; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.8; p=0.606) or on sub-score A (p=0.255). A statistically significant difference, though of limited clinical relevance, was observed in mean sub-score B (no CAT arm 8.8; CAT+ arm 9.6; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.6; p=0.045). There was no difference in understanding score (p=0.824) or overall performance (p=0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CAT is a disease-specific instrument that aids physician assessment of COPD. It does not appear to improve detection of non-COPD symptoms and co-morbidities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48998,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442750/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Helen C Marsden, Steve Holmes, Peter Kardos, Roger Escamilla, Roberto Dal Negro, June Roberts, Gilbert Nadeau, Mathieu Vasselle, David A Leather, Paul Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.4104/pcrj.2013.00001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One of the aims of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is to aid communication between the physician and patient about the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the patient's life.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To investigate the impact of the CAT on the quality of primary care consultations in COPD patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Primary care physicians across Europe conducted six consultations with standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors). Physicians were randomised to see the patient with the completed CAT (CAT+ arm) or without (no CAT arm) during the consultation. These were videoed and independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address patient-specific issues such as depression (sub-score A); review standard COPD issues such as breathlessness (sub-score B); their understanding of the case (understanding score); and their overall performance. The primary endpoint was the global score (sub-scores A+B; scale range 0-40).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 165 physicians enrolled in the study and carried out six consultations each; 882 consultations were deemed suitable for analysis. No difference was seen between the arms in the global score (no CAT arm 20.3; CAT+ arm 20.7; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.8; p=0.606) or on sub-score A (p=0.255). A statistically significant difference, though of limited clinical relevance, was observed in mean sub-score B (no CAT arm 8.8; CAT+ arm 9.6; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.6; p=0.045). There was no difference in understanding score (p=0.824) or overall performance (p=0.655).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The CAT is a disease-specific instrument that aids physician assessment of COPD. It does not appear to improve detection of non-COPD symptoms and co-morbidities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442750/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:COPD评估测试(CAT)的目的之一是帮助医生和患者就慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)对患者生活的负担进行沟通。目的:探讨CAT对COPD患者初级保健咨询质量的影响。方法:欧洲各地的初级保健医生对标准化COPD患者(由训练有素的演员扮演)进行了六次会诊。在会诊期间,医生被随机分组为完成CAT(CAT+臂)或未完成CAT(无CAT臂)的患者。这些都是录像的,独立评估员对医生识别和解决患者特定问题的能力进行评分,如抑郁症(A分);审查标准COPD问题,如呼吸困难(B分);他们对案件的理解(理解分数);以及它们的整体性能。主要终点是总体评分(总分A+B;量表范围0-40)。结果:共有165名医生参与了这项研究,每人进行了6次会诊;882次咨询被认为适合进行分析。在总体评分(无CAT组20.3;CAT+组20.7;95%CI-1.0-1.8;p=0.606)或亚评分A(p=0.255)方面,两组之间没有差异,在平均亚分B中观察到(无CAT组8.8;CAT+组9.6;95%CI 0.0至1.6;p=0.045)。理解得分(p=0.824)或总体表现(p=0.655)没有差异。结论:CAT是一种有助于医生评估COPD的疾病特异性工具。它似乎不能改善对非COPD症状和合并症的检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.

Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.

Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.

Utility of COPD Assessment Test (CAT) in primary care consultations: a randomised controlled trial.

Background: One of the aims of the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) is to aid communication between the physician and patient about the burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the patient's life.

Aims: To investigate the impact of the CAT on the quality of primary care consultations in COPD patients.

Methods: Primary care physicians across Europe conducted six consultations with standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors). Physicians were randomised to see the patient with the completed CAT (CAT+ arm) or without (no CAT arm) during the consultation. These were videoed and independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address patient-specific issues such as depression (sub-score A); review standard COPD issues such as breathlessness (sub-score B); their understanding of the case (understanding score); and their overall performance. The primary endpoint was the global score (sub-scores A+B; scale range 0-40).

Results: A total of 165 physicians enrolled in the study and carried out six consultations each; 882 consultations were deemed suitable for analysis. No difference was seen between the arms in the global score (no CAT arm 20.3; CAT+ arm 20.7; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.8; p=0.606) or on sub-score A (p=0.255). A statistically significant difference, though of limited clinical relevance, was observed in mean sub-score B (no CAT arm 8.8; CAT+ arm 9.6; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.6; p=0.045). There was no difference in understanding score (p=0.824) or overall performance (p=0.655).

Conclusions: The CAT is a disease-specific instrument that aids physician assessment of COPD. It does not appear to improve detection of non-COPD symptoms and co-morbidities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Primary Care Respiratory Journal PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信