Search

Background: Within primary care there exists a cohort of patients misdiagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Misdiagnosis can have a detrimental impact on healthcare finances and patient health and so understanding the factors leading to misdiagnosis is crucial in order to reduce misdiagnosis in the future. The objective of this study is to understand and explore the perceived causes of COPD misdiagnosis in primary care. Methods: A sequential mixed methods study, quantifying prevalence and features of patients misdiagnosed with COPD in primary care followed by a qualitative analysis to explore perceived causes of misdiagnosis. Quantitative data was collected for 206 patients identified as misdiagnosed with COPD within the INTEGR COPD study (NCT03482700). Qualitative data collected from 21 healthcare professionals involved in providing COPD care and 8 misdiagnosed patients who were recruited using a maximum variation purposive sampling. Results: Misinterpretation of spirometry results was the prevailing factor leading to patients initially being misdiagnosed with COPD, affecting 59% of misdiagnosed patients in this cohort. Of the 99 patients who were investigated for their underlying diagnosis; 41% had normal spirometry and 40% had asthma. Further investigation through qualitative methodology uncovered reluctance to challenge historical misdiagnoses and challenges in differential diagnosis as the underlying explanations for COPD misdiagnosis in this cohort. Conclusions: Patients historically diagnosed with COPD without spirometric evidence are at risk of remaining labelled and treated for COPD despite non-obstructive respiratory physiology, leading to a persistent cohort of patients misdiagnosed with COPD in primary care. The lack of spirometry services during and after the COVID19 pandemic in primary care risks adding to the cohort of misdiagnosed patients. Support from respiratory specialists can potentially help to reduce the prevalence of COPD misdiagnosis in primary care. Trial registration: NCT03482700. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the findings of a study on the integration of respiratory specialists into primary care settings to improve the care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The study found that integrating specialists led to improved adherence to treatment guidelines and had a positive impact on patients' quality of life, COPD exacerbations, and hospitalizations. However, the difference in outcomes between virtual integration and real integration was not clinically significant. The study suggests further research is needed to fully understand the effectiveness of integrating specialists into primary care. [Extracted from the article]

We study the effects of an early introduction of agriculture (Neolithic Transition) on modern agglomeration, using a new dataset on carbon dated organic materials found at archeological sites in Northern Europe. We find a positive effect of early agriculture, in particular within countries, which contrasts with a negative or zero correlation found in studies using older data, covering a larger region that includes both Europe and the Middle East. We argue that this reflects a mix of positive long‐run effects on urban agglomeration, and negative effects on state institutions, which show up to different degrees depending on context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I study the role of trade on inter-ethnic linguistic differences in the long run. I hypothesise that the geographic environment of neighbouring ethnic groups determines their potential gains from trade, and that the frequency of inter-ethnic trade—and resulting social interactions—shape the co-evolution of language. As a test of this hypothesis, I build a georeferenced dataset to examine the border region of spatially adjacent ethnic groups, together with variation in the set of potentially cultivatable crops at the onset of the Columbian Exchange, to identify how variation in land productivity impacts linguistic differences between adjacent ethnic groups. I find that ethnic groups separated across geographic regions with high variation in land productivity are more similar in language than groups separated across more homogeneous regions. I develop a model to theoretically ground this link between land productivity variation and inter-ethnic trade, and provide empirical evidence in support of this mechanism, including direct evidence of a causal link between land productivity variation and an ethnic group's reliance on trade for food and subsistence in pre-modern times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communication is a core component of a clinician's role; however, when clinicians conduct research, communicating the emerging findings and recommendations to different types of stakeholders can be unfamiliar territory. Communicating research to advocate for change can be even more challenging. Clinician researchers seeking to be agents for change need to conceive and craft specific, evidence-based messages and communicate these effectively to different stakeholders to negotiate action. As part of a global health research program, we developed and tested a novel game-based model to strengthen the communication skills of clinician researchers, from 4 countries, for improving services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. This model focused on communication with 3 key stakeholder groups for knowledge translation: Patients/carers, healthcare providers and policy makers/healthcare managers. Delivered through a series of facilitated, online meetings, this model consisted of 2 parts: developing and rehearsing advocacy messages with coaching support, and then testing them with a panel of 3 representative stakeholders, and an audience of fellow researchers. All the country teams reported increased confidence in crafting advocacy messages for specific stakeholders and have applied lessons learned from the model. Delivering this model within a global health research program requires mentoring, time, commitment, resources and translation support to address language barriers. It offers an exemplar to build the communication skills of clinician and non-clinician researchers so that they can go beyond dissemination toward translation of evidence into policy and practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J Correia-De-Sousa declares grant funding to his institution from AstraZeneca and GSK, advisory board and consulting fees paid to himself from Boheringer Ingelheim, GSK, AstraZeneca, Bial, Medinfar, Payment for lectures from GSK, AstraZeneca and Sanofi Pasteur, support for attending meetings from Mundipharma and Mylan, leadership role for International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG); A Dickens declares grant funding paid to his institution from NIHR GHR for current manuscript; A Farley declares grant funding paid to her institution from NIHR GHR for the present manuscript, grant funding from NIHR HTA, NIHR EME, MRC and Ethicon (Johnson and Johnson) for other work, membership on DMEC for NIHR funded e-cigarette trial (no honorarium), leadership role for International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG); R Jordan declares grant funding to her institution from NIHR, membership of Boehringer Ingelheim Primary Care Advisory Board, leadership role for International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG)—research sub-committee; S Martins declares leadership or fiduciary role in Brazilian Society of Medicine and Family and Community; ABC School of Medicine, GEPRAPS ( respiratory group of study and research in primary care), IPCRG (International Primary Care Respiratory Group); A Sitch declares grant funding to her institution from NIHR GHR for present manuscript, NIHR Birmingham BRC and AstraZeneca; A Turner declares grant funding to her institution from NIHR GHR for present manuscript, grant funding from AstraZeneca and Chiesi for other work, payment of honoraria from GSK and Boehringer, support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca and Chiesi; S Williams declares grants from the University of Birmingham paid to her institution; G Fernandes, P Adab, R Adams, C Chi, A Enocson, T Maghlakelidze, M Maglakelidze, A Stamenova, K Stavrikj, R Stelmach, Z Pan, H Pang, and J Zhang have no conflicts to declare.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of delivering a culturally tailored pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme and conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT)., Design: A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial with a mixed-methods process evaluation., Setting: Secondary care setting in Georgia, Europe., Participants: People with symptomatic spirometry-confirmed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease recruited from primary and secondary care., Interventions: Participants were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to a control group or intervention comprising 16 twice-weekly group PR sessions tailored to the Georgian setting., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Feasibility of the intervention and RCT were assessed according to: study recruitment, consent and follow-up, intervention fidelity, adherence and acceptability, using questionnaires and measurements at baseline, programme end and 6 months, and through qualitative interviews., Results: The study recruited 60 participants (as planned): 54 (90%) were male, 10 (17%) had a forced expiratory volume in 1 second of ≤50% predicted. The mean MRC Dyspnoea Score was 3.3 (SD 0.5), and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) 50.9 (SD 17.6). The rehabilitation specialists delivered the PR with fidelity. Thirteen (43.0%) participants attended at least 75% of the 16 planned sessions. Participants and rehabilitation specialists in the qualitative interviews reported that the programme was acceptable, but dropout rates were high in participants who lived outside Tbilisi and had to travel large distances. Outcome data were collected on 63.3% participants at 8 weeks and 88.0% participants at 6 months. Mean change in SGRQ total was -24.9 (95% CI -40.3 to -9.6) at programme end and -4.4 (95% CI -12.3 to 3.4) at 6 months follow-up for the intervention group and -0.5 (95% CI -8.1 to 7.0) and -8.1 (95% CI -16.5 to 0.3) for the usual care group at programme end and 6 months, respectively., Conclusions: It was feasible to deliver the tailored PR intervention. Approaches to improve uptake and adherence warrant further research., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN16184185., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To examine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of various chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening tests and combinations within a Chinese primary care population., Design: Screening test accuracy study., Setting: Urban and rural community health centres in four municipalities of China: Beijing (north), Chengdu (southwest), Guangzhou (south) and Shenyang (northeast)., Participants: Community residents aged 40 years and above who attended community health centres for any reason were invited to participate. 2445 participants (mean age 59.8 (SD 9.6) years, 39.1% (n=956) male) completed the study (February-December 2019), 68.9% (n=1684) were never-smokers and 3.6% (n=88) had an existing COPD diagnosis. 13.7% (n=333) of participants had spirometry-confirmed airflow obstruction., Interventions: Participants completed six index tests (screening questionnaires (COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire, COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE), Chinese Symptom-Based Questionnaire (C-SBQ), COPD-SQ), microspirometry (COPD-6), peak flow (model of peak flow meters used in the study (USPE)) and the reference test (ndd Easy On-PC)., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Cases were defined as those with forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1 )/forced vital capacity (FVC) below the lower limit of normal (LLN-GLI) on the reference test. Performance of individual screening tests and their combinations was evaluated, with cost-effectiveness analyses providing cost per additional true case detected., Results: Airflow measurement devices (sensitivities 64.9% (95% CI 59.5% to 70.0%) and 67.3% (95% CI 61.9% to 72.3%), specificities 89.7% (95% CI 88.4% to 91.0%) and 82.6% (95% CI 80.9% to 84.2%) for microspirometry and peak flow, respectively) generally performed better than questionnaires, the most accurate of which was C-SBQ (sensitivity 63.1% (95% CI 57.6% to 68.3%) specificity 74.2% (95% CI 72.3% to 76.1%)). The combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry used in parallel maximised sensitivity (81.4%) (95% CI 76.8% to 85.4%) and had specificity of 68.0% (95% CI 66.0% to 70.0%), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £64.20 (CNY385) per additional case detected compared with peak flow., Conclusions: Simple screening tests to identify undiagnosed COPD within the primary care setting in China is possible, and a combination of C-SBQ and microspirometry is the most sensitive and cost-effective. Further work is required to explore optimal cut-points and effectiveness of programme implementation., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13357135., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The latest chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) epidemiology survey in China estimated that there were 99 million potential COPD patients in the country, the majority of whom are undiagnosed. Screening for COPD in primary care settings is of vital importance for China, but it is not known which strategy would be the most suitable for adoption in primary care. Studies have been conducted to test the accuracy of questionnaires, expiratory peak flow meters and microspirometers to screen for COPD, but no study has directly evaluated and compared the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these methods in the Chinese setting., Methods and Analysis: We present the protocol for a multicentre cross-sectional study, to be conducted in eight community hospitals from four cities among Chinese adults aged 40 years or older to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different case-finding methods for COPD, and determine the test performance of individual and combinations of screening tests and strategies in comparison with quality diagnostic spirometry. Index tests are screening questionnaires (COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ), COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk Questionnaire (CAPTURE), symptom-based questionnaire, COPD Screening Questionnaire (COPD-SQ)), microspirometer and peak flow. Each participant will complete all of these tests in one assessment. The primary analysis will compare the performance of a screening questionnaire with a handheld device. Secondary analyses will include the comparative performance of each index test, as well as a comparison of strategies where we use a screening questionnaire and a handheld device. Approximately 2000 participants will be recruited over 9 to 12 months., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by Peking University Hospital and University of Birmingham. All study participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be published in appropriate journal and presented at national and international conferences, as well as relevant social media and various community/stakeholder engagement activities., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13357135., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To investigate the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) case finding on clinical care., Design: We conducted a prospective observational analysis of data from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care in the West Midlands, UK (TargetCOPD). This compared alternative methods of COPD case finding against usual care. Data were extracted from electronic healthcare records and self-reported questionnaires for a subset of patients with newly diagnosed COPD., Setting: 50 general practices that participated in the TargetCOPD trial., Participants: Patients aged 40-79 years newly identified with COPD by targeted case finding or by usual care, from 10 August 2012 to 22 June 2014., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was addition to a COPD register by the end of the trial. The secondary outcome was a clinical care score, derived from the sum of clinical assessments and relevant interventions. Associations between participant characteristics and the primary and secondary outcomes were assessed using multilevel regression., Results: 857 patients identified with COPD by case finding and 764 by usual care were included. Only 21.2% of case-found patients had been added to a COPD register, compared with 92.7% of those diagnosed by usual care. The odds of being added were greater in smokers (adjusted OR 8.68, 95% CI 2.53 to 29.8), and in those with lower percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (adjusted OR 0.96 per percentage rise, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98). Patients who had been added to a COPD register had a significantly higher clinical care score (mean difference 5.06, 95% CI 4.36 to 5.75)., Conclusions: Only one in five case-found patients had been registered with COPD. Patients added to a COPD register received significantly higher levels of appropriate clinical care., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN14930255; Post-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PA, REJ and DAF were principle investigators for the Birmingham Lung Improvement StudieS (BLISS) programme, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant reference number RP-PG-0109-10061). We report grants from various NIHR studies. PA is the Chair of the NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Funding committee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)