3.9 Article

Early detection of COPD in general practice: patient or practice managed? A randomised controlled trial of two strategies in different socioeconomic environments

Journal

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 331-337

Publisher

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY SOC-PCRS UK
DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2013.00070

Keywords

COPD; screening; questionnaire; spirometry; socioeconomic status; randomised controlled trial

Funding

  1. Lung Foundation Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is high. Health benefits can be gained in primary care by early detection and preventive measures. Aims: To compare the effectiveness of two strategies for population-based early detection of COPD, taking into account different socioeconomic status (SES) settings. Methods: Practices were randomised on strategy and stratified on SES setting. The Respiratory Health Screening Questionnaire (RHSQ) was distributed to all participants. In the practice-managed condition, the practice was responsible for the whole procedure, while in the patient-managed condition, patients were responsible for calculating their RHSQ risk score and applying for a spirometry test. The main outcome measure was the rate of COPD diagnoses after screening. Results: More new COPD patients were detected in the practice-managed condition (36%) than in the patient-managed condition (18%). In low SES practices, more high-risk patients were found (16%) than in moderate-to-high SES practices (9%). Recalculated for a standard Dutch practice (2,350 patients), the yield would be 8.9 new COPD diagnoses, which is a 20% increase of known cases. Conclusions: The practice-managed variant of this screening procedure shows a substantial yield of new COPD diagnoses for both low and moderate-to-high SES practices. (C) 2013 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available