Peak Flow Feedback Intervention Improves Under-Perception of Airflow Limitation in Pediatric Asthma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Jonathan M Feldman, Deepa Rastogi, Karen Warman, Denise Serebrisky, Kimberly Arcoleo
{"title":"Peak Flow Feedback Intervention Improves Under-Perception of Airflow Limitation in Pediatric Asthma: A Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Jonathan M Feldman, Deepa Rastogi, Karen Warman, Denise Serebrisky, Kimberly Arcoleo","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-637OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Under-perception of asthma symptoms is associated with poor asthma outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed the effects of a behavioral intervention for improving perception of airflow limitation and asthma outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-arm randomized controlled trial compared peak expiratory flow (PEF) feedback versus supportive counseling. Latino and Black adolescents with asthma ages 10-17 years old and caregivers were recruited from hospitals in the Bronx, NY. PEF feedback sessions reviewed accuracy of PEF guesses and medication adherence data, and targeted behavior change using motivational interviewing and problem-solving skills training. Supportive counseling received emotional support related to asthma. Both groups received 3 sessions across 6 weeks. All participants were blinded to PEF while guessing PEF during pre-intervention, 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up. Children in PEF feedback saw actual PEF after guesses were locked in during the 6-week intervention. Participants and assessors were blinded to group assignment.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was under-perception of airflow limitation (divergence between actual PEF and guesses) on home spirometers. Secondary outcomes included daily PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV<sub>1</sub>), inhaled corticosteroid adherence measured by electronic monitors, Asthma Control Test, and emergency healthcare use for asthma.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sample comprised 354 children (<u>M</u> = 13.2±2.2 years; 62% Latino, 38% Black) and caregivers. PEF feedback (N = 153 analyzed) demonstrated greater improvements at 1-month follow-up on under-perception of airflow limitation (difference-in-differences, -12.64; 95% CI, -17.54 to -7.74), % personal best PEF (9.89; 95% CI, 7.13 to 12.65), % predicted FEV<sub>1</sub> (4.93; 95% CI, 0.95 to 8.90) and ICS adherence (16.02; 95% CI, 7.15 to 24.89) compared with supportive counseling (N = 152 analyzed). At 12-month follow-up PEF feedback maintained improvements on under-perception of airflow limitation (-13.87; 95% CI, -19.03 to -8.71), higher PEF (14.23; 95% CI, 11.37 to 17.08) and %FEV<sub>1</sub> (5.62; 95% CI, 1.56 to 9.67), and had smaller declines in ICS adherence (17.51; 95% CI, 7.12 to 27.89) versus pre-intervention than supportive counseling. No between-group differences existed for asthma control or healthcare use.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The efficacy and sustainability of PEF feedback was established in improving children's perception of airflow limitation, pulmonary function, and medication adherence. Clinical trial registration available at www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov, ID: NCT02702687.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202406-637OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale: Under-perception of asthma symptoms is associated with poor asthma outcomes.

Objective: We assessed the effects of a behavioral intervention for improving perception of airflow limitation and asthma outcomes.

Methods: A two-arm randomized controlled trial compared peak expiratory flow (PEF) feedback versus supportive counseling. Latino and Black adolescents with asthma ages 10-17 years old and caregivers were recruited from hospitals in the Bronx, NY. PEF feedback sessions reviewed accuracy of PEF guesses and medication adherence data, and targeted behavior change using motivational interviewing and problem-solving skills training. Supportive counseling received emotional support related to asthma. Both groups received 3 sessions across 6 weeks. All participants were blinded to PEF while guessing PEF during pre-intervention, 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up. Children in PEF feedback saw actual PEF after guesses were locked in during the 6-week intervention. Participants and assessors were blinded to group assignment.

Measurements: The primary outcome was under-perception of airflow limitation (divergence between actual PEF and guesses) on home spirometers. Secondary outcomes included daily PEF and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), inhaled corticosteroid adherence measured by electronic monitors, Asthma Control Test, and emergency healthcare use for asthma.

Results: The sample comprised 354 children (M = 13.2±2.2 years; 62% Latino, 38% Black) and caregivers. PEF feedback (N = 153 analyzed) demonstrated greater improvements at 1-month follow-up on under-perception of airflow limitation (difference-in-differences, -12.64; 95% CI, -17.54 to -7.74), % personal best PEF (9.89; 95% CI, 7.13 to 12.65), % predicted FEV1 (4.93; 95% CI, 0.95 to 8.90) and ICS adherence (16.02; 95% CI, 7.15 to 24.89) compared with supportive counseling (N = 152 analyzed). At 12-month follow-up PEF feedback maintained improvements on under-perception of airflow limitation (-13.87; 95% CI, -19.03 to -8.71), higher PEF (14.23; 95% CI, 11.37 to 17.08) and %FEV1 (5.62; 95% CI, 1.56 to 9.67), and had smaller declines in ICS adherence (17.51; 95% CI, 7.12 to 27.89) versus pre-intervention than supportive counseling. No between-group differences existed for asthma control or healthcare use.

Conclusion: The efficacy and sustainability of PEF feedback was established in improving children's perception of airflow limitation, pulmonary function, and medication adherence. Clinical trial registration available at www.

Clinicaltrials: gov, ID: NCT02702687.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
峰值流量反馈干预可改善小儿哮喘患者对气流限制的认知不足:随机临床试验
理由:对哮喘症状认识不足与哮喘治疗效果不佳有关:对哮喘症状认识不足与哮喘治疗效果不佳有关:我们评估了改善气流受限感知和哮喘预后的行为干预效果:一项双臂随机对照试验比较了呼气流量峰值(PEF)反馈与支持性咨询。研究人员从纽约布朗克斯区的医院中招募了 10-17 岁患有哮喘的拉丁裔和黑人青少年以及照顾者。PEF 反馈课程审查了 PEF 猜测的准确性和服药依从性数据,并通过动机访谈和问题解决技能培训有针对性地改变行为。支持性咨询则提供与哮喘有关的情感支持。两组都接受了为期 6 周的 3 次治疗。在干预前、1 个月、6 个月和 12 个月的随访中,所有参与者在猜测 PEF 时都是盲测。在为期 6 周的干预中,儿童在猜测被锁定后,会看到 PEF 反馈中的实际 PEF。参与者和评估者均为盲人:主要结果是对家庭肺活量计上气流限制的感知不足(实际 PEF 与猜测之间的偏差)。次要结果包括每日PEF和1秒用力呼气容积(FEV1)、通过电子监测仪测量的吸入皮质类固醇依从性、哮喘控制测试和哮喘急诊就医情况:样本包括 354 名儿童(男 = 13.2±2.2 岁;62% 拉丁裔,38% 黑人)和护理人员。PEF 反馈(分析人数 = 153)显示,在 1 个月的随访中,气流受限感知不足(差值差异,-12.64;95% CI,-17.54 至 -7.74)、个人最佳 PEF 百分比、哮喘患者的哮喘治疗使用率、哮喘患者的哮喘治疗使用率和哮喘患者的哮喘治疗使用率均有较大改善。74)、个人最佳 PEF 百分比(9.89;95% CI,7.13 至 12.65)、预测 FEV1 百分比(4.93;95% CI,0.95 至 8.90)和 ICS 依从性(16.02;95% CI,7.15 至 24.89)与支持性咨询(分析人数 = 152)相比有更大改善。在为期 12 个月的随访中,与支持性咨询相比,PEF 反馈疗法在气流受限感知不足(-13.87;95% CI,-19.03 至 -8.71)、PEF(14.23;95% CI,11.37 至 17.08)和 FEV1%(5.62;95% CI,1.56 至 9.67)方面保持了改善,在 ICS 依从性(17.51;95% CI,7.12 至 27.89)方面的下降幅度较小。在哮喘控制或医疗保健使用方面不存在组间差异:PEF反馈在改善儿童对气流受限、肺功能和用药依从性的认知方面具有疗效和可持续性。临床试验注册请访问 www.Clinicaltrials: gov,ID:NCT02702687。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Airway Remodeling in Cystic Fibrosis Is Heterogeneous. County Level Social Determinates of Health and Correlation with COPD Prevalence in the US. Lest a Smoky Haze of Doubt Suffocate Progress Towards Better Pulse Oximeters. Lung Function Recovery from Pulmonary Exacerbations Treated with Oral Antibiotics in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia. Trends in the Treatment of Allergic Bronchopulmonary Aspergillosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1