Objective: Assessing the effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on diseasespecific quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) measured with the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), compared with usual care.
Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, in 39 Dutch primary care practices and 17 hospitals, with 357 patients with COPD aged ≥40 years, who could understand and read the Dutch language. Healthcare providers were randomly assigned to the intervention or control group. The intervention group applied the ABC tool, which consists of a short validated questionnaire assessing the experienced burden of COPD, objective COPD parameter and a treatment algorithm including a visual display and treatment advice. The control group provided usual care. Researchers were blinded to group allocation during analyses. Primary outcome was the number of patients with a clinically relevant improvement in SGRQ score between baseline and 18-month followup. Secondary outcomes were the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC).
Results: At 18-month follow-up, 34% of the 146 patients from 27 healthcare providers in the intervention group showed a clinically relevant improvement in the SGRQ, compared with 22% of the 148 patients from 29 healthcare providers in the control group. No difference was found on the CAT. The PACIC showed a higher improvement in the intervention group.
Conclusions: This study showed that use of the ABC tool may increase quality of life and perceived quality of care.

doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011519, hdl.handle.net/1765/98195
BMJ Open
Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management (ESHPM)

Slok, A., Kotz, D., van Breukelen, G., Chavannes, N., Rutten-van Mölken, M., Kerstjens, H., … van Schayck, O. (2016). Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of COPD (ABC) tool on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary and hospital care. BMJ Open, 6(7). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011519