Dataset Information

Discriminative Accuracy of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Screening Instruments in 3 Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Most of the global morbidity and mortality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with significant economic effects.

Objective

To assess the discriminative accuracy of 3 instruments using questionnaires and peak expiratory flow (PEF) to screen for COPD in 3 LMIC settings.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional analysis of discriminative accuracy, conducted between January 2018 and March 2020 in semiurban Bhaktapur, Nepal; urban Lima, Peru; and rural Nakaseke, Uganda, using a random age- and sex-stratified sample of the population 40 years or older.

Exposures

Three screening tools, the COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE; range, 0-6; high risk indicated by a score of 5 or more or score 2-5 with low PEF [<250 L/min for females and <350 L/min for males]), the COPD in LMICs Assessment questionnaire (COLA-6; range, 0-5; high risk indicated by a score of 4 or more), and the Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ; range, 0-25; high risk indicated by a score of 18 or less) were assessed against a reference standard diagnosis of COPD using quality-assured postbronchodilator spirometry. CAPTURE and COLA-6 include a measure of PEF.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was discriminative accuracy of the tools in identifying COPD as measured by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) with 95% CIs. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Results

Among 10 709 adults who consented to participate in the study (mean age, 56.3 years (SD, 11.7); 50% female), 35% had ever smoked, and 30% were currently exposed to biomass smoke. The unweighted prevalence of COPD at the 3 sites was 18.2% (642/3534 participants) in Nepal, 2.7% (97/3550) in Peru, and 7.4% (264/3580) in Uganda. Among 1000 COPD cases, 49.3% had clinically important disease (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease classification B-D), 16.4% had severe or very severe airflow obstruction (forced expiratory volume in 1 second <50% predicted), and 95.3% of cases were previously undiagnosed. The AUC for the screening instruments ranged from 0.717 (95% CI, 0.677-0.774) for LFQ in Peru to 0.791 (95% CI, 0.770-0.809) for COLA-6 in Nepal. The sensitivity ranged from 34.8% (95% CI, 25.3%-45.2%) for COLA-6 in Nepal to 64.2% (95% CI, 60.3%-67.9%) for CAPTURE in Nepal. The mean time to administer the instruments was 7.6 minutes (SD 1.11), and data completeness was 99.5%.

Conclusions and relevance

This study demonstrated that screening instruments for COPD were feasible to administer in 3 low- and middle-income settings. Further research is needed to assess instrument performance in other low- and middle-income settings and to determine whether implementation is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Siddharthan T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753498 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature.MethodsA search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020.ResultsA total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%).ConclusionsThis review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Project description:IntroductionSubstance use disorder (SUD) and problematic substance use are global public health concerns with significant multifaceted implications for physical health and psychosocial well-being. The impact of SUD extends beyond the individual to their family while imposing financial and social burdens on the community. Though family-centred interventions have shown promise in addressing SUD, their implementation and impact in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underexplored.Methods and analysisPer Joanna Briggs Institute's scoping review protocol, a systematic search strategy was employed across OVID Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science-Core Collection, Global Health and CINAHL from 22 February 2024 to 26 February 2024, to identify relevant studies focused on family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC, devoid of publication time and language constraints. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved through discussion or third-party reviews. The extracted data charted in a structured form will be visualised by diagrams or tables, focusing on the feasibility and impact of family-centred interventions for SUD in LMIC. For qualitative studies, the findings will be synthesised and presented in thematic clusters, and for studies that report quantitative outcomes, specific health, including SUD and psychosocial, outcomes will be synthesised, aligning with the Population, Concept and Context framework.Ethics and disseminationThese data on substance use, psychosocial outcomes and perspectives of individuals with SUD and their families will be presented in narrative format, highlighting patterns and identifying research gaps. This review aims to synthesise the existing evidence on family-centred interventions for improving substance use and/or psychosocial outcomes in individuals with SUD in LMIC and seeks to inform future policy and practice. Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review, and modifications to the review protocol will be disclosed. Findings will be disseminated through conference proceedings and peer-reviewed publication.

Project description:BackgroundIn low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), accurate measures of the elements of quality care provided by a health worker through family planning services (also known as process quality) are required to ensure family's contraceptives needs are being met. There are many tools used to assess family planning process quality of care (QoC) but no one standardized method. Those measuring QoC in LMICs should select an appropriate tool based the program context and financial/logistical parameters, but they require data on how well each tool measures routine clinical care. We aim to synthesize the literature on validity/comparability of family planning process QoC measurement tools through a quantitative systematic review with no meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched six literature databases for studies that compared quality measurements from different tools using quantitative statistics such as sensitivity/specificity, kappa statistic or absolute difference. We extracted the comparative measure along with other relevant study information, organized by quality indicator domain (e.g. counseling and privacy), and then classified the measure by low, medium, and high agreement.ResultsWe screened 8172 articles and identified eight for analysis. Studies comparing quality measurements from simulated clients, direct observation, client exit interview, provider knowledge quizzes, and medical record review were included. These eight studies were heterogenous in their methods and the measurements compared. There was insufficient data to estimate overall summary measures of validity for the tools. Client exit interviews compared to direct observation or simulated client protocols had the most data and they were a poor proxy of the actual quality care received for many measurements.ConclusionTo measure QoC consistently and accurately in LMICs, standardized tools and measures are needed along with an established method of combining them for a comprehensive picture of quality care. Data on how different tools proxy quality client care will inform these guidelines. Despite the small number of studies found during the review, we described important differences on how tools measure quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundTo improve care for patients with chronic diseases, a recent policy initiative in Thailand focused on strengthening primary care based on the concept of Chronic Care Model (CCM). This study aimed to assess the perception of patients about the health care services after the implementation.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of 4071 patients with hypertension and/or diabetes registered with 27 primary care units and 11 hospital non-communicable diseases (NCDs) clinics in 11 provinces. The patients were interviewed using a validated questionnaire of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care. Upgraded primary care units (PCUs) were ordinary PCUs with the multi-professional team including a physician. Trained upgraded PCUs were upgraded PCUs with the training input. Structural equation modeling was used to create subscale scores for CCM and 5 A model characteristics. Mixed effect logistic models were employed to examine the association of subscales (high vs low score) of patient perception of the care quality with type of PCUs.ResultsCompared to hospital NCD clinics, ordinary PCUs were the best in the odds of receiving high score for every CCM subscale (ORs: 1.46-1.85; p < 0.05), whereas the trained upgraded PCUs were better in terms of follow-up (ORs:1.37; p < 0.05), and the upgraded PCU did not differ in all domains. According to the 5 A model subscales, patient assessment also revealed better performance of ordinary PCUs in all domains compared to hospital NCD clinics whereas upgraded PCUs and trained upgraded PCUs did so in some domains. Seeing the same doctor on repeated visits (ORs: 1.82-2.17; p < 0.05) or having phone contacts with the providers (ORs:1.53-1.99; p < 0.05) were found beneficial using CCM subscales and the 5A model subscales. However, patient assessment by both subscales did not demonstrate a statistically significant association across health insurance status.ConclusionsThe policy implementation might not satisfy the patients' perception on quality of chronic care according to the CCM and the 5A model subscale. However, the arrangement of chronic care with patients seeing the same doctors or patients having telephone contact with healthcare providers may satisfy the patients' perceived needs.