Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026
Pulmonary specialist health coach consultation model: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Willard-Grace Rachel, Cabrera Abby, Tsao Stephanie, Potter Michael B, Hessler Danielle, Kong Marianna, Thom David H, Hilton Joan F, Su George
Аннотация
RATIONALE: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to overcome in health care settings with limited resources.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the efficacy of a pulmonary-specialist-health coach consultation model (intervention) for patients with asthma and/or COPD, relative to usual care (control).
METHODS: Randomized-controlled trial of 16 weeks of intervention versus control for adult English- or Spanish-speaking, low-income patients. Intervention: a lay health coach gathered information from the patient and medical record for remote review by a pulmonary specialist, who provided general recommendations to the primary care clinician. The coach supported implementation of recommendations.
MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were receipt of guideline-based care and medications. Secondary outcomes were receipt of chronic lung disease education, breathing-related quality of life and symptoms, patient-rated quality of care, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Longitudinal models for count data were used to estimate Intervention: Control relative rates. Parallel models for continuous data estimated relative means.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; 95% CI: 1.37-1.90). They were not more likely to receive guideline-based medications in planned analysis using a pooled baseline rate, although post-hoc analysis using arm-specific baseline rates found significant improvement. Intervention patients received more chronic lung disease education and reported greater improvements in breathing-related quality of life, symptoms, and patient-reported quality of care.
CONCLUSIONS: This intervention offers a scalable approach to improve uptake of clinical guidelines in resource-limited primary care practices managing most asthma and COPD care.
DESCRIPTOR NUMBER: 2.9 Racial, ethnic, or social disparities in lung disease and treatment.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03695276.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the efficacy of a pulmonary-specialist-health coach consultation model (intervention) for patients with asthma and/or COPD, relative to usual care (control).
METHODS: Randomized-controlled trial of 16 weeks of intervention versus control for adult English- or Spanish-speaking, low-income patients. Intervention: a lay health coach gathered information from the patient and medical record for remote review by a pulmonary specialist, who provided general recommendations to the primary care clinician. The coach supported implementation of recommendations.
MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were receipt of guideline-based care and medications. Secondary outcomes were receipt of chronic lung disease education, breathing-related quality of life and symptoms, patient-rated quality of care, and adherence to inhaler therapy. Longitudinal models for count data were used to estimate Intervention: Control relative rates. Parallel models for continuous data estimated relative means.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; 95% CI: 1.37-1.90). They were not more likely to receive guideline-based medications in planned analysis using a pooled baseline rate, although post-hoc analysis using arm-specific baseline rates found significant improvement. Intervention patients received more chronic lung disease education and reported greater improvements in breathing-related quality of life, symptoms, and patient-reported quality of care.
CONCLUSIONS: This intervention offers a scalable approach to improve uptake of clinical guidelines in resource-limited primary care practices managing most asthma and COPD care.
DESCRIPTOR NUMBER: 2.9 Racial, ethnic, or social disparities in lung disease and treatment.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03695276.