Providing reviews of evidence to COPD patients: controlled prospective 12-month trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate a novel patient-held manual designed to reduce the evidence-practice gap in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The intervention manual contained summaries of research evidence. It was developed using current best practice for patient information materials and designed to cause discussion of evidence between patient and doctor. A controlled before-and-after study was employed in two similar but geographically separate regions of metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. Participants had moderate to severe COPD, with 249 included at baseline and 201 completing the study. Evidence-based COPD management was measured using an indicator with three components: rates of influenza vaccination, bone density testing, and pulmonary rehabilitation. A survey of behavioral steps leading to practice change was conducted with the trial. Analysis, by median split of socioeconomic disadvantage, showed significant difference between study arms for only one component of the indicator of evidence-based practice, enrollment in pulmonary rehabilitation and only for the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum. For both socioeconomic strata, more intervention participants than control participants reported remembering being given the information material, reading part or all, and finding it very or quite helpful. Other significant differences were restricted to the stratum of greatest socioeconomic disadvantage: reading all of the material, learning from it, referring back, and talking to a doctor about a topic from the material. Above 90% of all participants who received the manual reported reading from it, 42% reported discussing topics with a doctor, but only 10% reported treatment change attributable to the manual. We have found that people with COPD will read an evidence manual developed using current best practice. However, the study demonstrated improvement for only one of the three components of an indicator of evidence-based disease management for only the most socioeconomically disadvantaged stratum of participants. Future interventions should be designed to better translate reading uptake into evidence-based disease management.