Advertisement

“A breath of fresh air” for tackling chronic disease in Ireland? An evaluation of a self-management support service for people with chronic respiratory diseases

  • Aishling SheridanEmail author
  • Aisling Jennings
  • Shirley Keane
  • Averil Power
  • Paul Kavanagh
Original Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To describe the impact of a nurse-led telephone self-management support (SMS) service for people with asthma and COPD in Ireland.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey of all (442) SMS users, July 2016 to May 2017, described user demographics, self-reported experience, process and outcome. Population utilisation was estimated and compared across groups. Factors associated with key outcomes were identified.

Results

The response rate was 162 (36.7%). Utilisation varied across population groups. Reported satisfaction was high, and 56.0% of users without a written action plan reported developing one. Most users reported positive cognitive and affective outcomes indicating effective patient activation. Information pack receipt was independently associated with better outcomes (odds ratio = 11.4 (95% CI, 2.0, 216.6), p < 0.05).

Conclusion

A nurse-led telephone SMS intervention positively impacted self-management for people with asthma and COPD in Ireland.

Practice implications

Roll-out of SMS should include staff training to promote positive service user experience and should include routine monitoring and evaluation to assure equitable reach and quality of key evidence-based care processes.

Keywords

Asthma Chronic obstructive airways disease Outcome and process assessment (health care) Patient education Self-management Telemedicine 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Elaine Brabazon, Department of Public Health North East; Dr. Carmel Mullaney, HSE Lead for Self-Management Support, Department of Public Health South East; and the users of the Self-Management Support Service who participated in this evaluation.

Author contributions

• A Sheridan planned, designed and conducted the evaluation, analysed and interpreted data, and drafted the report.

• A Jennings assisted in planning and conducting the evaluation and reviewed the report.

• S Keane assisted in planning the evaluation and reviewed the report.

• A Power assisted in planning the evaluation and reviewed the report.

• P Kavanagh supervised planning, designing and conducting the evaluation, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting and reviewing the report.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A Power and A Jennings were employed by the organisation which delivered the self-management support service. S Keane was employed by the organisation which commissioned and funded the self-management support service. A Sheridan and P Kavanagh were both independent of the funding and delivery of the service.

References

  1. 1.
    Jennings S (2014) Preventing chronic disease: defining the problem. Report from the prevention of chronic disease programme. Health Service Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Department of Health (2017) National Healthcare Quality Reporting System – third annual report 2017. Department of Health, DublinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hibbard JH, Mahoney ER, Stockard J, Tusler M (2005) Development and testing of a short form of the Patient Activation Measure. Health Serv Res 40(6):1918–1930CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine (2003) Priority areas for national action: transforming healthcare quality. National Academies Press (US), Washington (DC)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organisation (2015) WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Health Information and Quality Authority (2015) Health technology assessment of chronic disease self-management support interventions. Health Information and Quality Authority, DublinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Health Service Executive (2017) Living well with a chronic condition: framework for self-management support. Health Service Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Health Service Executive (2016) Survey of self management support for chronic disease. Health Service Executive, DublinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011) Office of the Director, Office of Strategy and Innovation. Introduction to program evaluation for public health programs: a self-study guide. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pearson ML, Mattke S, Shaw R, Ridgely MS, Wiseman SH (2007) Patient self-management support programs: an evaluation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SurveyMonkey Inc. San Mateo, California, USA. www.surveymonkey.com
  12. 12.
    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S (2009) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (8, 3):MR000008Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graham C, McCormick S (2012) Overarching questions for patient surveys: development report for the care quality commission (CQC). Picker Institute Europe, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    JMP. Version 12.0.1. SAS Institute Inc. SAS Campus Drive, Building T, Cary, NC 27513-2414, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daly LE, Bourke GJ (2000) Interpretation & uses of medical statistics, 5th Edition. Blackwell PublishingGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Central Statistics Office (CSO). Census 2016 Reports. Central Statistics Office, Skehard Road, Cork, Ireland. www.cso.ie. Accessed 19 Jul 2017
  17. 17.
    Statistics & Analytics Unit, Department of Health. Public Health Information System (PHIS). Department of Health, Hawkins House, Hawkins Street, Dublin 2Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greene J, Hibbard JH, Sacks R, Overton V, Parrotta CD (2015) When patient activation levels change, health outcomes and costs change, too. Health Aff (Millwood) 34(3):431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D (2013) A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 3(1):e001570CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dwamena F, Holmes-Rovner M, Gaulden CM, Jorgenson S, Sadigh G, Sikorskii A, Lewin S, Smith RC, Coffey J, Olomu A (2012) Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD003267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lenferink A, Brusse-Keizer M, van der Valk PD, Frith PA, Zwerink M, Monninkhof EM, van der Palen J, Effing TW (2017) Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8:CD011682PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Villa-Roel C, Voaklander B, Ospina MB, Nikel T, Campbell S, Rowe BH (2017) Effectiveness of written action plans for acute asthma: a systematic review. J Asthma 28:1–8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor SJC, Pinnock H, Epiphaniou E, Pearce G, Parke HL, Schwappach A, Purushotham N, Jacob S, Griffiths CJ, Greenhalgh T, Sheikh A (2014) A rapid synthesis of the evidence on interventions supporting self-management for people with long-term conditions: PRISMS – Practical systematic Review of Self-Management Support for long-term conditions. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals LibraryGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ryan A, Wilson S, Taylor A, Greenfield S (2009) Factors associated with self-care activities among adults in the United Kingdom: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 9:96CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health North East, Health and Wellbeing DivisionHealth Service ExecutiveDublinIreland
  2. 2.Asthma Society of Ireland (2017)DublinIreland
  3. 3.Primary Care Strategy and PlanningHealth Service ExecutiveDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations