Search

Background Guidelines recommend that asthma medication should be stepped down to the minimally effective dose that achieves symptom control. Stepping down aims to prevent adverse medication effects and unnecessary costs but is often not implemented in primary care, where most patients with asthma are managed. Little is known about the experiences and views of patients regarding stepping down.Methods Patients with stable asthma, with regular use of a preventer inhaler, from general practitioner practices across England, participated in a survey and/or semi-structured interview. Questions explored the patient’s understanding of their asthma, views and knowledge of preventer inhalers, experiences and perceptions of stepping down asthma medication. Qualitative group-based multidisciplinary thematic analysis by two healthcare professionals and a patient were performed.Results 143 patients responded to the survey, 63% were female, between the ages 18–80 years and including geographical areas across the UK, 17 of whom participated in an interview. Half of these patients with stable asthma, most with asthma for more than 10 years, had never had a discussion regarding stepping down asthma medication. Most stepping down that had occurred was related to seasonal changes in asthma control. Four overarching themes from the interviews were identified, (1) experiences of living with asthma and needing inhalers, (2) insufficient education regarding preventer inhalers, (3) stepping down is agreeable and possible and (4) current asthma care is suboptimal.Conclusion Patients with stable asthma were able to self-manage their asthma well. They had little awareness of medication adverse effects and minimal experience of having their medication stepped down by a healthcare professional. Most were inclined to step down, if clinically safe to do so, indeed some had reduced their medication doses themselves, without professional guidance.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 has restricted access to face-to-face delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Evidence suggests that telehealth-PR is non-inferior to outpatient PR. However, it is unknown whether patients who have been referred to face-to-face programmes can feasibly complete an online-PR programme.Methods This service evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to investigate a rapid PR service remodelling using the University of Gloucestershire eLearn Moodle platform. Quantitative baseline demographic and PR outcome data were collected from online-PR participants, and semistructured interviews were completed with PR staff and participants.Results Twenty-five individuals were eligible from a PR waiting list. Thirteen declined participation and 14 completed PR. Significant pre-post online PR improvements were achieved in 1 min sit-to-stand (CI 2.1 to 9 (p=0.004)), Generalised Anxiety Disorder (CI −0.3 to −2.6 (p=0.023)), Primary Health Questionnaire-9 (CI −0.3 to −5.1 (p=0.029)), Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnoea (CI 0.5 to 1.3 (p=0.001)), fatigue (CI 0.7 to 2 (p=0.0004)), emotion (CI 0.7 to 1.7 (p=0.0002)), mastery (CI 0.4 to 1.3 (p=0.001)). Interviews indicated that patient PR inclusion was made possible with digital support and a PR introduction session improved participant engagement and safety. Incremental progression of exercise was perceived as more successful online compared with face-to-face PR. However, perceptions were that education sessions were less successful. Online-PR required significant staff time resource.Discussion Online-PR improves patient outcomes and is feasible and acceptable for individuals referred for face-to-face PR in the context of a requirement for social distancing. Face-to-face programmes can be adapted in a rapid fashion with both staff and participants perceiving benefit. Future pragmatic trials are now warranted comparing online-PR including remote assessments to centre-based PR with suitably matched outcomes, and patient and staff perceptions sought regarding barriers and facilitators of online delivery.