Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands. METHODS: The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately. RESULTS: We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; p = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A. CONCLUSION: Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool aims to support disease management for one or multiple chronic condition(s), currently COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure.Statistically significant differences in patients' perceived quality of care and patient activation were found between the group that used the ABCC-tool and the care-as-usual group. No effect was found on generic quality of life or capability well-being.Healthcare providers can use the ABCC-tool in primary care.

A cluster-randomized study to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in South Tyrolean primary care for patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure: the ABCC South Tyrol study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure, often coexist and contribute to a significant burden on individuals and health systems. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool, already in routine clinical use in the Netherlands, aims to comprehensively assess and visualize disease burden, stimulate self-management, and encourage shared decision-making. This study aims to validate the German and Italian versions of the ABCC tool and evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in the South Tyrolean Primary Care setting. METHODS: This is a cluster-randomized study involving approximately 400 patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure who received care from the South Tyrolean General Practices. Initially, the ABCC tool will be translated into German and Italian and validated. Subsequently, half of the participants will use the validated ABCC tool for patient-reported outcome measurement assessments, while the other half will receive usual care. The primary outcome measure is the change in the patients' perception of the quality of care after 18 months. The secondary outcomes included changes in quality of life, self-management behavior, and healthcare utilization. The missing data will be managed using multiple imputations. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis that considers the direct medical costs reimbursed by the National Health Service will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study provides insights into the application, validation, and efficacy of the ABCC tool in the South Tyrolean healthcare context. The tool's potential to enhance person-centered care, improve the quality of life, and possibly reduce healthcare costs could greatly contribute to sustainable healthcare. The challenges of implementation, such as software integration and the use of an EU data platform, will provide lessons for future international patient care data management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13531607. Registered on August 23, 2023.

The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool; a validity and reliability study.

INTRODUCTION: Follow-up care after treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly focused on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functional outcomes. The Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool is developed to measure these outcomes and support patient-oriented care. The tool comprises items assessing burden of disease and lifestyle parameters. It consists of a generic module combined with one of the three CRC specific modules. The objective of this study is to assess the construct validity and reliability of the items of the ABCRC-tool. METHODS: Patients who were receiving follow-up care after surgical CRC treatment were invited to complete the ABCRC-tool together with other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Construct validity was assessed by testing expected correlations between items of the ABCRC-tool and domains of other PROMs and by examining predefined hypotheses regarding differences in subgroups of patients. Patients completed the ABCRC-tool twice, with 8 days apart, to evaluate its reliability. RESULTS: In total, 177 patients participated (64% male) with a mean age of 67 years (range 33-88). The colon, rectum and stoma module were completed by subsequently 89, 53 and 35 patients. Most items correlated as expected with anticipated domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QLQ-CR29 (all p-values <0.05). Furthermore, the ABCRC-tool could discriminate between subgroups of patients. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was good (>0.70) for most items, indicating good reliability. CONCLUSION: The ABCRC-tool is a valid and reliable instrument that is ready for use in a clinical setting to support personalized follow-up care after CRC treatment.

Recommendations for Improving Chronic Care in Times of a Pandemic Based on Patient Experiences.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound and pervasive impact on the health of chronic care patients and disrupted care systems worldwide. Our research aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on chronic care provision and provide recommendations for improving care provision, based on patient experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were held among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart failure. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using stratified sampling, 23 patients with COPD, heart failure, or both were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. In the summer of 2021, online interviews were conducted. METHODS: An iterative process was adopted to analyze the data. Going back and forth through the data and our analytical structure, we first coded the data, and subsequently developed categories, themes, and aggregate dimensions. The data were synthesized in a data structure and a data table, which were analyzed using an interpretative approach. RESULTS: We found 3 dimensions through which care might be improved: (1) proactive and adaptive health care organization and use of innovative technologies, (2) assistance in maintaining patient resilience and coping strategies, and (3) health care built on outreaching and person-centered care enabling identification of individual patient needs. Experiences of impaired accessibility to care, altered and unmet care demands and patient needs, and the negative impact of national containment strategies on patient resilience support the need for improvement in these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The in-depth insight gained on the impact of the pandemic on chronic care provision was used to propose recommendations for improving care, supported by not only the what and how but also the why developments require additional efforts made by policymakers and change agents, augmented by structural use and development of innovations. Health care organizations should be enabled to rapidly respond to changing internal and external environments, develop and implement innovations, and match care to patient needs.

Understanding the healthcare providers' perspective for bringing the assessment of burden of chronic conditions tool to practice: a protocol for an implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool is developed and validated to support and facilitate a personalised approach to care for people with chronic conditions. The benefit of using the ABCC-tool greatly depends on how it is implemented. To enable a deeper understanding of when, how and by whom the ABCC-tool is used, this study protocol describes the design of an implementation study in which the context, experiences and implementation process of the ABCC-tool by primary care healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Netherlands will be investigated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes an implementation study alongside an effectiveness trial, in which the ABCC-tool is evaluated in general practices. The implementation strategy of the tool in the trial confines to providing written information and an instruction video explaining the technical use of the ABCC-tool. The outcomes include a description of: (1) the barriers and facilitators of HCPs for implementation of the ABCC-tool, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and (2) the implementation outcomes guided by the Reach-Effect-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework Carroll's fidelity framework. All outcomes will be gathered through individual semistructured interviews throughout 12 months of use. Interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis for identifying barriers and facilitators (based on CFIR) and thematic analyses of HCPs' experiences (based on the RE-AIM and the fidelity frameworks). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The presented study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen (METCZ20180131). Written informed consent is mandatory prior to participation in the study. The results from the study in this protocol will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.

Validity and Reliability of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions Scale in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to improve care by facilitating shared decision making and self-management. It assesses and visualizes the experienced burden of 1 or multiple chronic conditions and integrates it in daily care. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the ABCC scale is valid and reliable in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, or type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: The Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S), and the Audit of Diabetes Dependent Quality of Life Questionnaire (ADDQoL19) were compared with the ABCC scale to assess convergent validity. The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was evaluated at a 2-week interval. RESULTS: A total of 65 people with COPD, 62 with asthma, and 60 with T2D were included. The ABCC scale correlated, in accordance with hypotheses, with the SGRQ (75% of correlations ≥0.7), AQLQ-S (100%), and ADDQoL19 (75%). The ABCC scale was internally consistent with a Cronbach's α of 0.90, 0.92, and 0.91 for the total score for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively. The ABCC scale had a good test-retest reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.95, 0.93, and 0.95 for people with COPD, asthma, and T2D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCC scale is a valid and reliable questionnaire that can be used within the ABCC tool for people with COPD, asthma, or T2D. Future research should indicate whether this applies to people with multimorbidity, and what the effects and experiences are upon clinical use.

The Psychosocial Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Chronic Care Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound and pervasive impact on psychosocial health and disrupted care systems world-wide. Our research aims to assess the psychosocial impact of the pandemic and related changes in chronic care provision on patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure. DESIGN: A qualitative survey using semi-structured interviews was held among patients with COPD and heart failure. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using randomized sampling, 23 patients with COPD, heart failure, or both were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were held by phone or videocall. The survey was held during the summer of 2021, when strict national containment strategies were widely implemented but gradually loosened and vaccination was ongoing. METHODS: Inductive coding using Gioia's approach was used to analyze the data in Atlas.Ti 9.1 software. Using an iterative approach, the data were synthesized in a data structure and data table, which was analyzed using an interpretative approach. RESULTS: We found 3 aggregate dimensions in which the COVID-19 pandemic has a negative impact on psychosocial health of patients with chronic disease: (1) perceived vulnerability to disease, (2) influence of health policy, and (3) a mismatch of supply and demand of health care. In these dimensions, the impact of the COVID-19 crisis was found to have a negative impact on psychosocial well-being, compounded by national strategies to contain the pandemic and a disruption of chronic care for patients. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Health care providers should be aware of a multidimensional nature of psychosocial distress for chronic disease patients due to the COVID-19 crisis. Future practice and health policy could be improved by increasing awareness among health care providers, promote regular attention for psychosocial well-being of patients, provision of clear information related to the pandemic, and strategies to secure continuity of care. Results of this study might be further explored in larger studies.

Development and content validation of the Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool.

BACKGROUND: It is essential to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life and symptom burden, in follow-up care of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. These outcomes are most valuable when they are discussed with patients and used to guide follow-up care. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Assessment of Burden of Colorectal cancer (ABCRC)-tool: a tool that includes a patient-reported questionnaire covering the experienced burden of colorectal cancer, assessment of lifestyle parameters, visualisation of the results, and treatment advice. METHODS: A 5-step method was used to develop the ABCRC-tool: (1) definition of the experienced burden of CRC, (2) determination of the components of experienced burden, (3) formulation of the instrument preconditions, (4) literature study on existing instruments, (5) development of an integrated instrument. Content validity was evaluated by think-aloud interviews with 11 patients and 22 healthcare professionals (HCPs). RESULTS: The ABCRC-tool consists of a generic module and three CRC specific modules with items related to experienced disease burden, and lifestyle. The CRC specific modules are available for both colon and rectal cancer patients with anastomosis, and patients with a stoma. An algorithm with cut-off points was developed to visualise outcomes and offer treatment advice based on (inter)national guidelines. The evaluation of content led to a few minor amendments. CONCLUSION: The ABCRC-tool is a product of close cooperation between patients and HCPs and has good face and content validity. It is aimed to incorporate PROs in treatment decisions in oncological care.

Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. RESULTS: After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study.

INTRODUCTION: The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients' activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

ABC-tool reinvented: development of a disease-specific 'Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool' for multiple chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: Numerous instruments have been developed to assess patient reported outcomes; most approaches however focus on a single condition. With the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity, this might no longer be appropriate. Moreover, a more comprehensive approach that facilitates shared decision making and stimulates self-management is most likely more valuable for clinical practice than a questionnaire alone. This study aims to transform the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (ABC)-tool into the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool for COPD, asthma, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). The tool consists of a scale, a visualisation of the outcomes, and treatment advice. METHODS: Requirements for the tool were formulated. Questionnaires were developed based on a literature study of existing questionnaires, clinical guidelines, interviews with patients and healthcare providers, and input from an expert group. Cut-off points and treatment advice were determined to display the results and to provide practical recommendations. RESULTS: The ABCC-scale consists of a generic questionnaire and disease-specific questionnaires, which can be combined into a single individualized questionnaire for each patient. Results are displayed in one balloon chart, and each domain includes practical recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCC-tool is expected to facilitate conversations between a patient and a healthcare provider, and to help formulate treatment plans and care plans with personalised goals. By facilitating an integrated approach, this instrument can be applied in a variety of circumstances and disease combinations.

The Fold-in, Fold-out Design for DCE Choice Tasks: Application to Burden of Disease.

Background In discrete-choice experiments (DCEs), choice alternatives are described by attributes. The importance of each attribute can be quantified by analyzing respondents' choices. Estimates are valid only if alternatives are defined comprehensively, but choice tasks can become too difficult for respondents if too many attributes are included. Several solutions for this dilemma have been proposed, but these have practical or theoretical drawbacks and cannot be applied in all settings. The objective of the current article is to demonstrate an alternative solution, the fold-in, fold-out approach (FiFo). We use a motivating example, the ABC Index for burden of disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods Under FiFo, all attributes are part of all choice sets, but they are grouped into domains. These are either folded in (all attributes have the same level) or folded out (levels may differ). FiFo was applied to the valuation of the ABC Index, which included 15 attributes. The data were analyzed in Bayesian mixed logit regression, with additional parameters to account for increased complexity in folded-out questionnaires and potential differences in weight due to the folding status of domains. As a comparison, a model without the additional parameters was estimated. Results Folding out domains led to increased choice complexity for respondents. It also gave domains more weight than when it was folded in. The more complex regression model had a better fit to the data than the simpler model. Not accounting for choice complexity in the models resulted in a substantially different ABC Index. Conclusion Using a combination of folded-in and folded-out attributes is a feasible approach for conducting DCEs with many attributes.

ABC Index: quantifying experienced burden of COPD in a discrete choice experiment and predicting costs.

OBJECTIVE: The Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool supports shared decision making between patient and caregiver. It includes a coloured balloon diagram to visualise patients' scores on burden indicators. We aim to determine the importance of each indicator from a patient perspective, in order to calculate a weighted index score and investigate whether that score is predictive of costs. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Primary care and secondary care in the Netherlands. 282 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and 252 members of the general public participated. METHODS: Respondents received 14 choice questions and indicated which of two health states was more severe. Health states were described in terms of specific symptoms, limitations in physical, daily and social activities, mental problems, fatigue and exacerbations, most of which had three levels of severity. Weights for each item-level combination were derived from a Bayesian mixed logit model. Weights were rescaled to construct an index score from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). Regression models were used to find a classification of this index score in mild, moderate and severe that was discriminative in terms of healthcare costs. RESULTS: Fatigue, limitations in moderate physical activities, number of exacerbations, dyspnoea at rest and fear of breathing getting worse contributed most to the burden of disease. Patients assigned less weight to dyspnoea during exercise, listlessness and limitations with regard to strenuous activities. Respondents from the general public mostly agreed. Mild, moderate and severe burden of disease were defined as scores <20, 20-39 and ≥40. This categorisation was most predictive of healthcare utilisation and annual costs: €1368, €2510 and €9885, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC Index is a new index score for the burden of COPD, which is based on patients' preferences. The classification of the index score into mild, moderate and severe is predictive of future healthcare costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3788; Post-results.

'To use or not to use': a qualitative study to evaluate experiences of healthcare providers and patients with the assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) tool.

In the management of chronic conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there is a shift from doctor-driven care to patient-centred integrated care with active involvement of and self-management by the patient. A recently developed tool, the assessment of burden of COPD (ABC) tool, can be used in this transition to facilitate self-management support and shared decision-making. We performed a qualitative study, in which we collected and analysed the data using the methods of conventional content analyses. We performed in-depth interviews consisting of mainly open questions. Fifteen healthcare providers and 21 patients were interviewed who had worked with the ABC tool in daily care. In general, participants responded positively to the tool. Healthcare providers felt the visual representation provided was effective and comprehensible for patients and provided them with insight into their disease, a finding that patients confirmed. If patients were allowed to choose between a consultation with or without the ABC tool, the majority would prefer using the tool: it provides them with an overview and insight, which makes it easier to discuss all relevant topics related to COPD. The tool can provide structure in consultations, and is compatible with the concepts of 'motivational interviewing' and 'individualised care-planning'. Suggestions for improvement related to content and layout. So far, the tool has only been available as a stand-alone online program, that is not connected to the electronic medical record systems. It was therefore suggested that the tool be integrated into the systems to enhance its usability and its uptake by healthcare providers.

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on disease-specific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD (postbronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio <0.7) aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter (eg, lung function) and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC; a measurement of perceived quality of care). RESULTS: At 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.16). No difference was found on the CAT (-0.26 points (scores ranging from 0 to 40); 95% CI -1.52 to 0.99). The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group (0.32 points (scores ranging from 1 to 5); 95% CI 0.14 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3788; Results.

The Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) Scale: A Reliable and Valid Questionnaire.

The newly developed Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale is a 14-item self-administered questionnaire which measures the physical, psychological, emotional and/or social burden as experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The ABC scale is part of the ABC tool that visualises the outcomes of the questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and construct validity of the ABC scale. This multi-centre survey study was conducted in the practices of 19 general practitioners and 9 pulmonologists throughout the Netherlands. Next to the ABC scale, patients with COPD completed the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Reliability analyses were performed with data from 162 cases. Cronbach's alpha was 0.91 for the total scale. Test-retest reliability, measured at a two week interval (n = 137), had an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.92. Analyses for convergent validity were performed with data from 133 cases. Discriminant and known-groups validity was analysed with data from 162 cases. The ABC scale total score had a strong correlation with the total score of the SGRQ (r = 0.72, p < 0.001) but a weak correlation with the forced expired volume in 1 second predicted (r = -0.28, p < 0.001). Subgroups with more severe disease, defined by GOLD-stage, frequency of exacerbations, activity level and depression scored statistically significantly (p < 0.05) worse on almost all domains of the ABC scale than the less severe subgroups. The ABC scale seems a valid and reliable tool with good discriminative properties.

Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (ABC) tool: study protocol of a cluster randomised trial in primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a growing worldwide problem that imposes a great burden on the daily life of patients. Since there is no cure, the goal of treating COPD is to maintain or improve quality of life. We have developed a new tool, the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool, to assess and visualize the integrated health status of patients with COPD, and to provide patients and healthcare providers with a treatment algorithm. This tool may be used during consultations to monitor the burden of COPD and to adjust treatment if necessary. The aim of the current study is to analyse the effectiveness of the ABC tool compared with usual care on health related quality of life among COPD patients over a period of 18 months. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in COPD patients in both primary and secondary care throughout the Netherlands. An intervention group, receiving care based on the ABC tool, will be compared with a control group receiving usual care. The primary outcome will be the change in score on a disease-specific-quality-of-life questionnaire, the Saint George Respiratory Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes will be a different questionnaire (the COPD Assessment Test), lung function and number of exacerbations. During the 18 months follow-up, seven measurements will be conducted, including a baseline and final measurement. Patients will receive questionnaires to be completed at home. Additional data, such as number of exacerbations, will be recorded by the patients' healthcare providers. A total of 360 patients will be recruited by 40 general practitioners and 20 pulmonologists. Additionally, a process evaluation will be performed among patients and healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: The new ABC tool complies with the 2014 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease guidelines, which describe the necessity to classify patients on both their airway obstruction and a comprehensive symptom assessment. It has been developed to classify patients, but also to provide visual insight into the burden of COPD and to provide treatment advice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3788.

Development of the Assessment of Burden of COPD tool: an integrated tool to measure the burden of COPD.

In deciding on the treatment plan for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the burden of COPD as experienced by patients should be the core focus. It is therefore important for daily practice to develop a tool that can both assess the burden of COPD and facilitate communication with patients in clinical practice. This paper describes the development of an integrated tool to assess the burden of COPD in daily practice. A definition of the burden of COPD was formulated by a Dutch expert team. Interviews showed that patients and health-care providers agreed on this definition. We found no existing instruments that fully measured burden of disease according to this definition. However, the Clinical COPD Questionnaire meets most requirements, and was therefore used and adapted. The adapted questionnaire is called the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) scale. In addition, the ABC tool was developed, of which the ABC scale is the core part. The ABC tool is a computer program with an algorithm that visualises outcomes and provides treatment advice. The next step in the development of the tool is to test the validity and effectiveness of both the ABC scale and tool in daily practice.