David H. Thom

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: 165 intervention participants received 1.61-fold more guideline-based care than 163 control participants (relative ratio; 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.

Objective. To explore attitudes and beliefs about the role of health coaching for vulnerable populations, including people experiencing substance use or homelessness. Methods. From May–July 2016, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients, primary care clinicians, pulmonary specialists, and health coaches participating in a study of health coaching for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We developed a codebook and applied it in Atlas.ti, generating themes for frequently occurring codes. Results. All stakeholder groups (n=20 patients, 11 primary care clinicians, three specialists, and two health coaches), reported improved COPD management and behavior change, even for patients experiencing substance use or homelessness. Clinicians observed greater symptom awareness and prioritization of COPD during the medical visit. The strength of the health coaching relationship and flexibility of the role were key to its effectiveness. Conclusion. Lay health coaching may provide a model to meet the needs of highly vulnerable populations with COPD.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death in the United States; it affects over 12 million US adults. COPD is more common and more severe for adults living near or below the poverty level. Managing COPD is complex and programs designed to improve management can have substantial effects on a patient's health and well-being. The most comprehensive disease self-management programs, i.e., "pulmonary rehabilitation," are generally not available to patients who are seen at community clinics.

Recruitment and retention are two significant barriers in research, particularly for historically underrepresented groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, patients who are low-income, or people with substance use or mental health issues. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of death and disproportionately affects many underrepresented groups. The lack of representation of these groups in research limits the generalizability and applicability of clinical research and results. In this paper we describe our experience and rates of recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups for the Aides in Respiration (AIR) COPD Health Coaching Study. A priori design strategies included minimizing exclusion criteria, including patients in the study process, establishing partnerships with the community clinics, and ensuring that the health coaching intervention was flexible enough to accommodate patient needs. Challenges to recruitment included lack of spirometric data in patient records, space constraints at the clinic sites, barriers to patient access to clinic sites, lack of current patient contact information and poor patient health. Of 282 patients identified as eligible, 192 (68%) were enrolled in the study and 158 (82%) completed the study. Race, gender, educational attainment, severity of disease, health literacy, and clinic site were not associated with recruitment or retention. However, older patients were less likely to enroll in the study and patients who used home oxygen or had more than one hospitalization during the study period were less likely to complete the study. Three key strategies to maximize recruitment and retention were identified during the study: incorporating the patient perspective, partnering with the community clinics, and building patient rapport. While the AIR study included design features to maximize the recruitment and retention of patients from underrepresented groups, additional challenges were encountered and responded to during the study. We also identified three key strategies recommended for future studies of COPD and similar conditions. Incorporating the approaches described into future studies may increase participation rates from underrepresented groups, providing results that can be more accurately applied to patients who carry a disparate burden of disease. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov at identifier NCT02234284 on August 12, 2014. Descriptor number: 2.9 Racial, ethnic, or social disparities in lung disease and treatment.

Rationale: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often face barriers to evidence-based care that are difficult to address in public care settings with limited resources. Objectives: To determine the benefit of health coaching for patients with moderate to severe COPD relative to usual care. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 9 months of health coaching versus usual care for English- or Spanish-speaking patients at least 40 years of age with moderate to severe COPD. Primary outcomes were COPD-related quality of life and the dyspnea subscale of the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy for managing COPD, exercise capacity (6-min walk test), and number of COPD exacerbations. Additional outcomes were COPD symptoms, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted), smoking status, bed days owing to COPD, quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), COPD knowledge, and symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire). Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were assessed by review of medical records. Generalized linear modeling was used to adjust for baseline values and account for clustering by clinic. Results: Of 192 patients enrolled, 158 (82%) completed 9 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences between study arms for the primary or secondary outcomes. At 9 months, patients in the coached group reported better quality of care (mean Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score, 3.30 vs. 3.18; adjusted P = 0.02) and were less likely to report symptoms of moderate to severe depression (Patient Health Questionnaire score, ≥15) than those in the usual care arm (6% vs. 20%; adjusted P = 0.01). During the study, patients in the coaching arm had 48% fewer hospitalizations related to COPD (0.27/patient/yr vs. 0.52/patient/yr), but this difference was not significant in the adjusted analysis. Conclusions: These results help inform expectations regarding the limitations and benefits of health coaching for patients with COPD. They may be useful to health policy experts in assessing the potential value of reimbursement and incentives for health coaching–type activities for patients with chronic disease. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02234284).

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) severely hinders quality of life for those affected and is costly to the health care system. Care gaps in areas such as pharmacotherapy, inhaler technique, and knowledge of disease are prevalent, particularly for vulnerable populations served by community clinics. Non-professionally licensed health coaches have been shown to be an effective and cost-efficient solution in bridging care gaps and facilitating self-management for patients with other chronic diseases, but no research to date has explored their efficacy in improving care for people living with COPD. This is multi-site, single blinded, randomized controlled trial evaluates the efficacy of health coaches to facilitate patient self-management of disease and improve quality of life for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Spirometry, survey, and an exercise capacity test are conducted at baseline and at 9 months. A short survey is administered by phone at 3 and 6 months post-enrollment. The nine month health coaching intervention focuses on enhancing disease understanding and symptom awareness, improving use of inhalers; making personalized plans to increase physical activity, smoking cessation, or otherwise improve disease management; and facilitating care coordination. The results of this study will provide evidence regarding the efficacy and feasibility of health coaching to improve self-management and quality of life for urban underserved patients with moderate to severe COPD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02234284 . Registered 12 August 2014.