Providing patients with reviews of evidence about COPD treatments: a controlled trial of outcomes

Abstract

Studies in many countries have identified gaps between what is known from research evidence and what is done in clinical practice. Merely making research evidence available to practitioners does not cause much change in their behaviour, and researchers are now looking for more effective ways to improve the implementation of evidence. We report outcomes at three months of a parallel group trial of an evidence based patient manual designed to improve implementation of evidence by the patient's doctors. The patient manual was produced with extensive patient and professional input. It contained summaries of the evidence for treatments used in COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and prompted discussion of evidence with doctors. Participants in the intervention arm of the trial (n = 125) were supplied with the manual and participants in the control arm (n = 124) were supplied with a pamphlet about COPD produced by the Australian Lung Foundation. The primary outcome measure (rates of current influenza vaccination and bone density testing) was an indicator of evidence based management of COPD. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (mastery component), satisfaction with information, communication with usual doctor, and anxiety. At three months no pattern of benefit in outcome measures was found for either group. Process measures showed high levels of personal use of the manual but progression to conversations with doctors for fewer than half of participants, and little treatment change. The findings highlight the difficulties of promoting changes in health behaviour and show that even when all stakeholders are consulted success is not guaranteed. Further research is required to identify those patients most likely to use manuals such as the one reported here, and how to make patient mediated interventions more effective for a greater proportion of the target population.