You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 10, Issue 11
  • Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study

Article Text

Article menu
XML
General practice / Family practice
Protocol
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study
  1. Esther A. Boudewijns1,
  2. Danny Claessens1,
  3. Manuela Joore2,
  4. Lotte C.E.M. Keijsers1,
  5. Onno C.P. van Schayck1,
  6. Bjorn Winkens3,
  7. Annerika H.M. Gidding-Slok1
  1. 1Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Methodology and Statistics, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Esther A. Boudewijns; esther.boudewijns{at}maastrichtuniversity.nl

Abstract

Introduction The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure.

Methods and analysis The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients’ activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models.

Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

  • heart failure
  • primary care
  • asthma
  • chronic airways disease
  • diabetes & endocrinology
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037693

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EAB, DC, AHMG-S and OCPvS designed the study. EAB drafted the manuscript. BW was consulted in writing about statistics, and MJ helped with writing about cost-effectiveness. The paper was critically revised by DC, MJ, LCEMK, OCPvS, BW and AHMG-S. All authors critically reviewed and revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding This study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (104006001).

    • Disclaimer The funders in the study had no role in the study design; nor will they have a role in data collection, analysis, interpretation of the data or writing of the report.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.