■该研究旨在就最相关的患者报告结果(PRO)达成共识,相应的措施(PROM),和严重哮喘患者随访期间的测量频率。
■进行了两轮德尔菲。问卷是在系统文献综述的基础上制定的,有病人的焦点小组,和一个有专家的名义小组。它使用李克特量表(1=完全同意;9=完全不同意)评估了PROM的相关性和适当性(A)和可行性(F)。当≥75%的参与者同意(1-3)或不同意(7-9)时,就建立了共识。
■63名专业人员(25名医院药剂师,14名过敏症患者,13名肺病学家,和11名护士)和5名患者回答了德尔菲问卷。就所有专业人员的相关性达成了共识。专家同意使用ACT(A:95.24%;F:95.24%),迷你AQLQ(A:93.65;F:79.37%),mMRC呼吸困难量表(A:85.71%;F:85.71%),TAI(A:92.06%;F:85.71%),MMAS(A:75.40%;F:82%),和配药登记簿(A:96.83%;F:92.06%)。还认为合适的是:SNOT-22(A:90.48%;F:73.80%),PSQI(A:82.54;F:63.90%),HADS(A:82.54;F:64%),WPAI(A:77.78%;F:49.20%),TSQM-9(A:79.37;F:70.50%)和哮喘知识问卷(A:77%;F:68.80%);然而,在临床实践中使用它们被认为是不可行的.小组成员还同意EQ-5D的适当性,尽管在临床实践中被认为不可行(A:84.13%;F:67.20%),但最终被包括在内。就使用ACT达成协议,TAI,mMRC,和配药登记册每三个月;迷你AQLQ和MMAS每六个月;和EQ-5D每十二个月。
■这一共识为以患者为中心的护理铺平了道路,促进制定支持重度哮喘管理中PRO常规评估的策略。
UNASSIGNED: The study aimed to reach a
consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic literature review, a focus group with patients, and a nominal group with experts. It assessed PROs\' relevance and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of PROMs using a Likert scale (1=totally agree; 9=totally disagree). The
consensus was established when ≥75% of participants agreed (1-3) or disagreed (7-9).
UNASSIGNED: Sixty-three professionals (25 hospital pharmacists, 14 allergists, 13 pulmonologists, and 11 nurses) and 5 patients answered the Delphi questionnaire. A
consensus was reached on all PROs regarding their relevance. Experts agreed on the use of ACT (A:95.24%; F:95.24%), mini AQLQ (A:93.65; F:79.37%), mMRC dyspnea scale (A:85.71%; F:85.71%), TAI (A:92.06%; F:85.71%), MMAS (A:75.40%; F:82%), and the dispensing register (A:96.83%; F:92.06%). Also considered suitable were: SNOT-22 (A:90.48%; F:73.80%), PSQI (A:82.54; F:63.90%), HADS (A:82.54; F:64%), WPAI (A:77.78%; F:49.20%), TSQM-9 (A:79.37; F:70.50%) and knowledge of asthma questionnaire (A:77%; F:68.80%); however, their use in clinical practice was considered unfeasible. Panelists also agreed on the appropriateness of EQ-5D, which was finally included despite being considered unfeasible (A: 84.13%; F:67.20%) in clinical practice. Agreement was reached on using ACT, TAI, mMRC, and a dispensing register every three months; mini-AQLQ and MMAS every six months; and EQ-5D every twelve months.
UNASSIGNED: This
consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.