Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 2, 117-122
© Oxford University Press 1999
Self-treatment of asthma: possibilities and perspectives from the practitioner's point of view
Dept of General Practice and Social Medicine, Nijmegen University,
a Dept of Primary Health Care, Newcastle University,
b Dept of Public Affairs, Nijmegen University and
c Interuniversity Quality of Care Group, Nijmegen University.
Dr BPA Thoonen, Dept of General Practice and Social Medicine, Nijmegen University, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thoonen BPA, Jones KP, van Rooij HA, van den Hout AC, Smeele I, Grol R and van Schayck CP. Self-treatment of asthma: possibilities and perspectives from the practitioner's point of view. Family Practice 1999; 16: 117–122.
Received 12 January 1998; Revised 22 June 1998; Accepted 19 November 1998.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract BackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Objectives. Self-management of asthma is becoming more and more widespread. The implementation of this treatment strategy requires changes in the role and attitude of the GP. These changes may be hindered by obstacles both expected and experienced. As self-treatment of asthma is more common in the UK, comparison between UK and Dutch GPs provides a good opportunity to identify possible obstacles in general practice to the implementation of self-treatment of asthma with inhaled corticosteroids.
Methods. We carried out a qualitative descriptive study with self-administered questionnaires and interviews. Questionnaires were sent to 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs. Interviews were held with 20 Dutch and 25 British GPs in order to acquire more in-depth information. The outcome measures were attitude towards, knowledge regarding and experiences with self-treatment of asthma; organizational requirements; and expectations of consequences of self-treatment in general practice.
Results. The Dutch and British GPs investigated have a positive attitude towards self-treatment of asthma. Though knowledge about self-treatment is present among a majority of the GPs, self-treatment by patients is not yet as common in The Netherlands as it is in the UK. Nineteen per cent of the Dutch GPs had experience with a written peak-flow-based self-treatment plan related to the usage of inhaled steroids. According to our findings, present expected obstacles are probably mainly of the organizational kind, such as the availability of time, money and materials.
Conclusions. There is a positive attitude towards the implementation of self-treatment plans in general practice, but problems relating to certain identified obstacles need to be addressed. There is a need to define which patients might profit from self-treatment, and further proof of both the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of self-treatment needs to be acquired.
Keywords. Asthma, descriptive study, general practice, interview, self-management..
|
Background |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In the last decade, interest in self-treatment of asthma has increased and several studies with different self-treatment strategies have been published. After the first positive results of a self-management plan in the United Kingdom, published by Beasley et al. in 1989,1 others also found clues that self-management and self-treatment programmes may lead to improvement of patients' outcomes.2–6 Some researchers, however, found more moderate results or even little or no evidence for beneficial effects of self-treatment programmes.7–9 Most of the positive research has been done among out-patient populations and attenders at accident and emergency departments, so results may be not applicable to general practice. Furthermore, as there are great differences between designs, outcome parameters and contents of the self-management programmes used, it is difficult to compare the results, but at least components such as patient education and peak-flow assessments are felt to have some proven value.3,4,10
Guidelines for asthma treatment in the UK and the US have emphasized the use of self-management plans,11–13 but guidelines for general practice in The Netherlands have not thus far advised the use of such plans on a broader scale.14 The use of self-treatment plans among Dutch GPs is therefore less common. Implementation of effective self-treatment plans in general practice might require a change in the role and attitude of the GP. Instead of ‘prescriptor’ the GP becomes educator and coach.
|
Objectives |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Self-management of asthma seems to be an effective way of managing asthma, and present evidence may justify a change in treatment strategy. Before implementing this change in treatment, the obstacles to this change should be identified.15 The purpose of this paper is to assess whether GPs are willing to make these changes and what obstacles they might encounter during these changes. As self-treatment of asthma is already more common in the UK, comparison between UK and Dutch GPs provides a good opportunity to assess the obstacles encountered and expected when implementing self-treatment in general practice. The following questions were explored:
- What is the present knowledge of self-treatment of asthma among Dutch GPs?
- How do Dutch GPs use self-treatment plans at present?
- What are the attitudes of Dutch GPs towards the implementation of asthma self-treatment?
- Do Dutch GPs have realistic expectations about the implementation of self-treatment plans in comparison with their more-experienced UK colleagues?
- What are the experienced obstacles and problems regarding the implementation of asthma self-treatment in general practice in the UK and in The Netherlands?
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In the literature there are several definitions for self-treatment and self-management. In this study we used the following definition: self-treatment of asthma means that patients vary their dosage and frequency of inhaled steroids based on peak-flow values and/or asthma symptoms, as described in a written plan. We consider this form of self-treatment to be a component of the broader concept of asthma self-management.16
This study was conducted in two phases: first, questionnaires were sent to 500 randomly selected Dutch GPs. The questionnaires provided information from a large group of GPs. However, as they contained mainly closed questions, they were not the most suitable instrument for gaining proper insight into the opinions of the GPs. So, secondly, 20 Dutch GPs and 25 British GPs were interviewed in a standardized way
Questionnaire phase
A random selection of 500 GPs across all of The Netherlands received a questionnaire. After 1 month a reminder was sent to non-responders. GPs were asked to report reasons for not responding to the questionnaire on a separate form, in order to investigate a possible recruitment bias. As no previous instrument was suitable, a structured, closed-end-question (multiple choice), 20-item questionnaire for postal distribution and self-completion was designed specifically for this study. Face validity was examined by discussion with clinical colleagues. The following GP characteristics were studied: age; type of practice: solo, duo, group, health centre, else; urbanization: >30 000 inhabitants, <30 000 inhabitants, rural; and membership of the Dutch College of General Practitioners. In relation to research questions 1 and 2, we asked for familiarity with self-treatment plans (yes, no, a little; symptom-based versus peak-flow-based; with inhaled bronchodilators and/or with inhaled steroids). Information about attitudes and expectations was provided by the following items: possible advantages and disadvantages of self-treatment plans; reasons for not applying self-treatment plans; attitude towards self-treatment plans (useful, because ...; not useful, because ...); willingness to implement self-treatment plans (eager to, probably want to, don't know yet, probably not, not); reported possible obstacles. Data were analysed using the SAS 6.07 under the CMS statistical package.
Interview phase
Twenty of the Dutch GPs who returned the questionnaires were also interviewed in their practices. As it is obvious that familiarity with self-treatment of asthma is needed in order to have an opinion about it, these 20 GPs were randomly selected from among those GPs who mentioned being familiar with the concept of self-treatment of asthma. Additionally, 25 GPs in the Tyneside area of North-East England, selected as broadly in favour of proactive asthma care by one of the authors (KJ), were interviewed about their attitudes and experiences with self-treatment of asthma. The interviews with the Dutch and British GPs utilized a standard set of questions. The contents of the interview are summarized in Table 1
.
|
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
As the interviews were designed to obtain more elaborate information about the same subjects who completed the questionnaire, results are presented simultaneously. Where relevant, the source of the information will be specified.
The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 59%. Of the 500 questionnaires originally sent out, 287 (57%) were suitable for further analysis. Six forms were not completed at all, and 207 forms were not returned. Of these 207 non-responders, 47 GPs in total gave 63 reasons for not responding. The most common reason for not responding was lack of time (90% of these 47, see Table 2). Table 3 shows some of the characteristics of the GPs who returned the questionnaire. When comparing the type of practice characteristics with figures from the Dutch Institute for Primary Care Research (NIVEL), the sample should in this extent be representative of all Dutch GPs.28 One hundred and three (36%) GPs reported to be very (well) familiar with the concept of asthma self-treatment, 141 (49%) were somewhat familiar with it and 43 (15%) had never heard of this self-treatment concept. ‘No experience with self-treatment’ was reported by 20% of the non-responders as a reason for not responding. Presuming that the group of non-responders with no experience with self-treatment is comparable with the responders that had never heard of this self-treatment concept (15%), there might have been some recruitment bias. One hundred and fifty-three (65% of GPs with some kind of experience, 53% of total responders) of the GPs had experience with self-treatment with inhaled steroids, based on asthma symptoms, whereas 45 (19% of GPs with some kind of experience, 16% of total responders) had experience with peak-flow-based programmes.
|
|
Advantages
In both the questionnaire and the interview, Dutch GPs reported several possible advantages of self-treatment in various areas: for patients, prescribing, health costs and GPs. Reported advantages for patients were an increase in self-efficacy, higher patient satisfaction and greater independence and responsibility. Self-treatment programmes could lead to a better control of the disease as a consequence of earlier recognition of symptoms and less doctor-induced delay in treatment. Patients might suffer fewer and milder exacerbations; furthermore, as a consequence of better control, the long-term effects of asthma might be reduced. More efficient medication usage may lead to fewer side effects and perhaps better compliance. From an economic point of view, fewer medical consultations in both primary and secondary care may be needed, together with less use of additional medications. Although GPs expect that the implementation of self-treatment plans initially will take up more of their time, in the long term, as a result of better asthma control, self-treatment might lead to a reduction in emergency visits and intercurrent visits to the GP and thus save time.
Disadvantages
The Dutch GPs felt that as self-treatment requires specific knowledge, skills and patient awareness, this approach is only possible for a selected group of patients. These requirements may well result in extra GP workload for the teaching of self-treatment programmes to patients. Also a lower contact frequency could lead to less medical control of the disease. Misinterpretation of symptoms and wrong treatment decisions by patients could lead to an increased delay in seeking medical help and a consequent more rapid decline in lung function. The long-term influence of self-treatment on the course of asthma is still unknown. At the medication level, self-treatment programmes could result in overtreatment or undertreatment and decreased compliance. In economic terms, more complications may well lead to an increased need for treatment and medical resources, with an attendant rise in health care costs. In the interviews with British GPs, most of the GPs explained that they had not (yet) encountered any of these negative effects.
Willingness to implement self-treatment plans
Sixty-eight GPs (24% of total responders) did not promote self-treatment of asthma with inhaled steroids for one or more reasons. Their stated reasons for not applying self-treatment are summarized in Table 4. Most of the GPs reported that they had never really thought about the implementation of self-treatment, or did not know how to start with the implementation of self-treatment plans. Among the GPs who reported self-treatment with inhaled steroids to be useful (164, 57%), almost 90% of the GPs were more or less willing to start self-treatment (see Table 5). This is 51% of the total number of responders.
|
|
Reported obstacles
Of the above 164 GPs, 41 (25%) thought that there would be no consequences for daily practice in commencing asthma self-treatment, but reported expected obstacles by the remainder were: availability of time, availability of necessary materials (peak-flow devices, diary cards, etc), delegation of tasks and the role of the practice assistant or nurses, and changes needed in the role of the GP. During the interviews with the British GPs, some experienced obstacles were reported that need to be taken into account when implementing self-treatment of asthma in general practice. These obstacles were mainly of a practical nature. Necessary materials (e.g. peak-flow devices, diary cards) need to be available. At the start of the implementation of self-treatment, an extra time investment is needed. Later on, as reported by the GPs, this time investment will be paid back, because of a decreasing number of emergency visits and consultations. Tasks need to be clearly divided among the GP and the practice nurse, and both need to use the same protocol of care. The lack of such a clearly described protocol was reported as one of the obstacles. Setting up a so-called asthma clinic was reported as a good solution to overcome most of the organizational problems.
We also studied the relationship between knowledge of self-treatment of asthma, age, type of practice, earlier experiences with self-management of diabetics and the willingness to start implementing self-treatment. The only relationship we found was a positive association between the familiarity of the GP with the concept of self-treatment of asthma and his/her willingness to start implementing such self-treatment (see Table 6).
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our results indicate that 57% of the Dutch GPs in our sample have a positive attitude towards the implementation of asthma self-treatment plans in general practice. Many have at least some knowledge about this innovation in care, but experience with the use of self-treatment is more limited. When comparing the expected disadvantages of the Dutch GPs with the experienced disadvantages of the British GPs, Dutch GPs may overestimate the possible disadvantages of self-treatment of asthma. On the other hand, they do have a realistic understanding of the potential obstacles in primary care which need to be overcome in the more widespread promulgation of self-treatment, and their views in this area are echoed by the experiences of the UK GPs interviewed.
The increasing prevalence of asthma, among other factors, has also led to an increased burden of asthma morbidity.17–20 Since the majority of asthma management for both acute and chronic episodes occurs in general practice,21,22 it is important that the community care of this common disease is optimized. The publication of numerous consensus-based guidelines on asthma management over the last decade has been a welcome advance,11–12 as has been the more recent production of evidence-based documents.23 Proof of the effectiveness of such guidelines has gradually appeared, but there has often been insufficient focus on the organizational aspects of asthma care outside hospitals.
The development of asthma self-management plans has to some extent mirrored that of guidelines. Some original hospital-based experience indicated that they may be beneficial,1 and their use, particularly in the UK, then became widespread. Further community-based research has followed quite slowly, but some at least of the literature now indicates benefits for patients.2,5,24
Some important lessons have emerged from earlier experiences. First, showing beneficial outcomes of such care has proven to be difficult, and present-day research findings are not all in favour of self-management. Secondly, it is still unclear which patients might profit most from self-management programmes, but there are indications that these plans do not necessarily apply to all patients. For example, self-treatment based on peak-flow meters is not suitable for all patients and symptom-based self-treatment programmes are, under certain circumstances, equally effective as peak-flow-based programmes.7,25
If the potential advantages of asthma self-treatment are to be realized in the community, there is a need for clear guidelines, describing how to implement self-treatment of asthma in general practice and defining the patients that might profit from self-treatment. Current differences in available self-treatment plans need to be regularized.26 In the interviews with the British GPs, the need for a clear division of tasks and a useful protocol of care was expressed. Organizational requirements are likely therefore to play crucial roles in delivering optimal asthma care. A recent UK publication by Neville et al. underlines the possible influence of practice organization and audit on clinical outcome measures in general practice asthma care.27
Clearly, interest in self-treatment programmes among Dutch GPs is increasing. Knowledge and attitude towards self-treatment of asthma do not seem to be obstacles for the implementation of self-treatment programmes. However, training practice assistants or practice nurses and GPs, and reorganizing general practice in order to implement a self-treatment programme take time and money. Resources of potential benefit to patients with asthma could be wasted if strict attention to training of practice assistants or nurses and the production of efficient protocols is not given.
As a consequence of this study, a self-treatment programme tailored to Dutch general practice will be developed and further research to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this self-treatment programme initiated.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractBackgroundObjectivesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1 Beasley R, Cushley M, Holgate ST. A self-management plan in the treatment of adult asthma. Thorax 1989; 44: 200–204.
2
Lahdensuo A, Haahtela T, Herrala J et al. Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. Br Med J 1996; 312: 748–752.
3 Taitel MS, Kotses H, Bernstein IL, Bernstein DI, Creer TL. A self-management program for adult asthma. Part II: Cost-benefit analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 95: 672–676.[Web of Science][Medline]
4 Kotses H, Bernstein IL, Bernstein DI et al. A self-management program for adult asthma. Part I: Development and evaluation. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 95: 529–540.[Web of Science][Medline]
5 Ignacio Garcia JM, Gonzalez Santos P. Asthma self-management education program by home monitoring of peak expiratory flow. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151: 353–359.[Abstract]
6 D'Souza W, Crane J, Burgess C et al. Community-based asthma care: trial of a ‘credit card’ asthma self-management plan. Eur Respir J 1994; 7: 1260–1265.[Abstract]
7
Jones KP, Mullee MA, Middleton M, Chapman E, Holgate ST. Peak flow based asthma self-management: a randomised controlled study in general practice. British Thoracic Society Research Committee. Thorax 1995; 50: 851–857.
8 Bernard Bonnin AC, Stachenko S, Bonin D, Charette C, Rousseau E. Self-management teaching programs and morbidity of pediatric asthma: a meta-analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 95: 34–41.[Web of Science][Medline]
9
Drummond N, Abdalla M, Beattie JAG et al. Effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow in patients with asthma. Br Med J 1994; 308: 564–567.
10 Partridge MR. Delivering optimal care to the person with asthma: what are the key components and what do we mean by patient education? Eur Respir J 1995; 8: 298–305.[Abstract]
11 British Thoracic Society. Guidelines on the management of asthma. Thorax 1993; 48 (Suppl): S1–S24.
12 Expert Panel on the management of asthma. Executive Summary: guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1991; 88(3pt2): 425–534.[Medline]
13 The British Thoracic Society et al. The British Guidelines on Asthma Management 1995 Review and Position Statement. Thorax 1997; 52: (Suppl 1).
14 Geijer RMM, Van Hensbergen W, Bottema BJAM et al. NHG-standaard astma bij volwassenen: behandeling. Huisarts Wet 1997; 40(9): 443–454.
15
Grol R. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. Br Med J 1997; 315: 418–421.
16 Neville R. Patient education and guided self-management plans. Resp Med 1996; 90: 385–386.[Medline]
17 Jones KP. Asthma care in general practice—time for revolution? Br J Gen Pract 1991; 41: 224–225.[Medline]
18 Gellert AR, Gellert SL, Iliffe SR. Prevalence and management of asthma in a London inner city general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40: 197–201.[Web of Science][Medline]
19 Bauman A, Mitchell CA, Henry RL et al. Asthma morbidity in Australia: an epidemiological study. Med J Aust 1992; 156: 827–831.[Web of Science][Medline]
20
Roberts SJ, Bateman DN. Which patients are prescribed inhaled anti-asthma drugs? Thorax 1994; 49: 1090–1095.
21 Charlton IH, Bain DJG. The care of children with asthma in general practice: signs of progress? Br J Gen Pract 1991; 41: 256.
22 Neville RG, Clark RC, Hoskins G et al., for the General Practitioners in Asthma Group. National asthma attack audit 1991–2. Br Med J 1992; 306: 559–562.
23
North of England Asthma Guideline Development Group. North of England Evidence Based Guidelines Development Project: evidence based guidelines for the primary care management of asthma in adults. Br Med J 1996; 312: 762–766.
24 Kotses H, Stout C, McConnaughy K, Winder JA, Creer TL. Evaluation of individualized asthma self-management programs. J Asthma 1996; 33(2): 113–118.[Web of Science][Medline]
25 Charlton I, Charlton G, Broomfield J, Mullee MA. Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice. Br Med J 1990; 301: 1355–1359.
26 Meijer RJ, Kerstjens HAM, Postma DS. Comparison of guidelines and self-management plans in asthma. Eur Resp J 1997; 10: 1163–1172.[Abstract]
27 Neville RG, Hoskins G, Smith B, Clark RA. Observations on the structure, process and clinical outcomes of asthma care in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1996; 46: 583–587.[Web of Science][Medline]
28 NIVEL. Jaarboek Nederlands Instituut voor Eerstelijnsgezondheidszorg. Utrecht, NIVEL 1993.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Action plans in asthma DTB, December 1, 2005; 43(12): 91 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B P A Thoonen, T R J Schermer, G van den Boom, J Molema, H Folgering, R P Akkermans, R Grol, C van Weel, and C P van Schayck Self-management of asthma in general practice, asthma control and quality of life: a randomised controlled trial Thorax, January 1, 2003; 58(1): 30 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. R. Schermer, B. P. Thoonen, G. van den Boom, R. P. Akkermans, R. P. Grol, H. T. Folgering, C. van Weel, and C. P. van Schayck Randomized Controlled Economic Evaluation of Asthma Self-Management in Primary Health Care Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., October 15, 2002; 166(8): 1062 - 1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||