Abstract
Rationale
Self-management is considered as an important part of disease management for people with pulmonary fibrosis (PF), but there is a lack of consensus regarding what components should be included. This study aimed to attain consensus from experts in PF and people living with the disease on the essential components and format of a PF self-management package.
Methods
A two-round Delphi process was conducted. In each round, a panel of experts completed an online survey to rate a range of components, formats and delivery methods, followed by an online patient focus group to integrate patient perspectives. Consensus was defined a priori.
Results
45 experts participated in Round 1 and 51 in Round 2. Both focus groups included six people with PF. 12 components were considered essential for self-management in PF: 1) understanding treatment options; 2) understanding and accessing clinical trials; 3) managing medications; 4) role of oxygen therapy; 5) role and importance of pulmonary rehabilitation and regular physical activity; 6) managing shortness of breath; 7) managing fatigue; 8) managing mood; 9) managing comorbidities; 10) smoking cessation advice and support; 11) accessing community support; and 12) how to communicate with others when living with PF. Both groups agreed that self-management in PF required individualisation, goal setting and feedback.
Conclusion
This study identified 12 essential components and highlighted individualisation, goal setting and feedback in self-management of PF. The findings provide a basis for the development of PF self-management interventions.
Short abstract
This study identified 12 components deemed essential for self-management in PF. People with PF emphasised the importance of physical activity and managing mood. Individualisation, goal setting and feedback were important for effective self-management. https://bit.ly/3CN9ad0
Introduction
Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a heterogeneous group of over 200 lung disorders [1]. Pulmonary fibrosis (PF) is a hallmark feature of many types of ILD with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) being the most common subtype [2]. Effective therapeutic options for PF are limited. Two antifibrotic treatments (pirfenidone and nintedanib) are currently available for people with IPF, with recent approval of nintedanib for other progressive fibrosing ILDs in the USA and Australia [3–5]. Whilst shown to be effective in slowing disease progression, people with PF still face a significant symptom burden over the disease trajectory.
A recent systematic review reported significantly better survival among those taking antifibrotics [6]. With longer survival comes the need to more effectively manage the disease. However, unmet needs for support and information have frequently been reported among people with PF [7].
Modern PF care requires a person-centred approach, shared decision-making with healthcare professionals (HCP) and optimal self-care [8, 9]. Recent studies showed that HCPs welcomed a more proactive participation in clinical care by those with PF [10], whilst those with PF expressed interest in learning more about self-management [11, 12].
Self-management interventions aim to promote a person's ability to adopt positive health behaviours and to manage symptoms, treatments and other disease consequences [13]. Such interventions have been shown to improve health-related quality of life and reduce hospital admissions [14] and are highly recommended by clinical guidelines for other lung conditions such as COPD [15]. In our previous study, HCPs and people with PF identified a range of components considered important for self-management. These included disease knowledge, managing symptoms and treatments, support and lifestyle changes [16]. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding which components are essential for self-management in PF and the optimal delivery method. This study aimed to gain consensus from an expert panel of HCPs and people with PF on the essential components of a self-management package for PF, and its optimal format and delivery method.
Methods
This study was conducted between February and June 2021 using a Delphi method. Ethics approval was received from Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project ID: 27139). The Delphi method involves an iterative process aimed at obtaining a consensus of expert opinion. A series of surveys are typically administered, whilst focus groups are commonly used to provide validation [11]. 26 components identified in our previous study [16] were presented to the expert panel through an online survey. Two survey rounds were completed with each round being followed by a patient focus group that allowed integration of the perspectives of those with PF and validation of results.
The Delphi panel comprised international experts in PF from the disciplines of medicine, nursing, allied health and clinical research. Healthcare professionals who specialised in providing care to people with PF and/or had an expertise in PF research were identified through peer reviewed literature, professional networks and word of mouth. Eligible HCPs were invited via e-mail with survey completion indicating consent. The same group of HCPs were invited to participate in both rounds. To account for possible attrition following Round 1 and to optimise our sample size, we extended an invitation to an additional five HCPs who then participated in Round 2.
Focus groups comprised people with PF. The study was advertised on patient e-newsletters and social media platforms via Lung Foundation Australia to recruit adults (≥18 years) with PF. Participants from our previous study who expressed interest in future research were also contacted [16]. People with both IPF and non-IPF diagnoses and varying disease severity and treatment experiences were included. Non-English speakers were excluded given the focus group discussions required communicating in English. Participants were required to have access to an internet connection and a device that allowed them to participate in the online focus group. Informed written consent was obtained via e-mail. The same group of eligible individuals with PF were invited to participate in both rounds. Owing to one participant from Round 1 passing away prior to Round 2 commencing, we identified another individual living with PF who was invited to participate in the Round 2 focus group.
The online surveys were created and distributed using the Qualtrics survey platform. Each survey was open for 4 weeks, with a reminder sent at 2 weeks.
In the Round 1 survey, the expert panel was asked to rate a range of self-management components by answering the question “Do you agree that the following items are essential for a PF self-management package?” and rate several format and delivery methods for a self-management package (Supplementary file 1). Participants were invited to nominate additional components and comment on each item.
A 5-point Likert scale was used for the rating, with 1 “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neutral”, 4 “agree” and 5 “strongly agree” as anchors. An interquartile range (IQR)=0 is usually considered as having achieved a high level of consensus [11]. Therefore, in this study, consensus was defined as a median score ≥4 and IQR=0, where these items were deemed essential for a self-management package. Components with a median score ≤3 and IQR=0 were eliminated and components without consensus (IQR >0) were retained for the Round 2 survey. The median scores and IQR were calculated using SPSS (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) statistical software.
Round 1 survey results were presented to the patient focus group using teleconference software (Zoom) and facilitated by two researchers. An online method was chosen to allow participants to take part from various geographical locations and provided a safe environment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed using a content analysis approach, and representative quotes were extracted. Items that reached consensus in the survey and were endorsed by the focus groups were considered as essential components of self-management for PF. Focus group feedback on items not reaching consensus was included in the Round 2 survey for reconsideration (supplementary file 2).
In the Round 2 survey, the expert panel was asked to rate the items not reaching consensus in Round 1 and any additional items nominated by the panel or focus group. Results from Round 1 (median score and IQR) along with representative quotes derived from the focus group were presented for consideration. Round 2 survey results were then presented to a second focus group for discussion and final approval of essential components and optimal delivery methods. In this final step, the voice of the focus group participants was decisive for the choice of components for inclusion in a self-management package even if the component did not reach consensus in the Round 2 survey.
Demographic information on Delphi participants including sex, age, discipline, location and years of experience in PF were collected. Information on focus group participants including age, ILD diagnosis, lung function and current treatments were recorded.
Results
41% (45 out of 111) of invited experts completed the Round 1 survey; 44% (51 out of 116) completed the second round (table 1). Across both rounds, the majority of HCPs were female (64% and 53% respectively), respiratory physicians (58% and 61% respectively), followed by clinical researchers (22% and 31% respectively) and allied health professionals (22% and 20% respectively), which included physiotherapists, exercise physiologists, an oxygen clinic coordinator and a clinical psychologist. 68% of HCPs had over a decade of experience in PF. Most were from Australia, New Zealand or North America.
TABLE 1.
Participant demographic information
| Round 1 | Round 2 | |
| Experts in PF | ||
| Subjects n | 45 | 51 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 16 (36) | 24 (47) |
| Female | 29 (64) | 27 (53) |
| Age years | ||
| 25–35 | 4 (9) | 5 (10) |
| 36–45 | 14 (31) | 15 (29) |
| 46–55 | 15 (33) | 18 (35) |
| Over 55 | 12 (27) | 13 (26) |
| Discipline# | ||
| Physician | 26 (58) | 31 (61) |
| Nurse | 8 (18) | 8 (16) |
| Researcher | 10 (22) | 16 (31) |
| Allied health¶ | 10 (22) | 10 (20) |
| Other | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Multiple disciplines | 9 (20) | 14 (28) |
| Experience in PF care years | ||
| <5 | 4 (9) | 5 (10) |
| 6–10 | 11 (24) | 8 (15) |
| 11–25 | 21 (47) | 26 (51) |
| >25 | 8 (18) | 10 (20) |
| Do not provide direct patient care | 1 (2) | 2 (4) |
| Location | ||
| Asia | 5 (11) | 7 (14) |
| Australia/New Zealand | 15 (33) | 16 (31) |
| Europe | 8 (18) | 12 (23) |
| North America | 16 (36) | 13 (26) |
| South America | 1 (2) | 3 (6) |
| Focus group participants (people living with PF) | ||
| Subjects n | 6 | 6 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 4 (67) | 4 (67) |
| Female | 2 (33) | 2 (33) |
| Age years | 67.5 (36–72) | 67.5 (36–76) |
| Diagnosis | ||
| IPF | 4 (67) | 4 (67) |
| Non-IPF+ | 2 (33) | 2 (33) |
| Time since diagnosis years | 3.5 (1–5) | 3.5 (1–10) |
| FVC % predicted | 70.5 (39–94) | 82.0 (39–94) |
| TLCO % predicted | 49.5 (19–84) | 49.5 (32–84) |
| Therapy§ | ||
| Antifibrotic | 3 (50) | 4 (67) |
| Immunosuppressantƒ | 2 (33) | 2 (33) |
| Oxygen## | 2 (33) | 2 (33) |
| Location | ||
| (state in Australia) | ||
| Victoria | 6 (100) | 5 (83) |
| Western Australia | 0 (0) | 1 (17) |
Data are presented as n, n (%) or median (range). PF: pulmonary fibrosis; IPF: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; FVC: forced vital capacity; TLCO: transfer factor for carbon monoxide. #: healthcare professional participants were allowed to choose multiple disciplines; ¶: allied health professionals included physiotherapist, exercise physiologist and oxygen clinic coordinator and clinical psychologist; +: non-IPF diagnoses included connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease (n=2); §: in Round 1, one participant with PF used both antifibrotic therapy and oxygen therapy, and in Round 2, two used both therapies; ƒ: one participant with PF used mycophenolate mofetil and prednisolone, and the other participant used only mycophenolate mofetil; ##: in Round 1, both participants with PF used oxygen continuously including on exertion, and in Round 2, one used oxygen continuously and one used it only on exertion.
Both focus groups included six people with PF who lived in Australia (table 1). Five participated in both groups. Participants had a median age of 67.5 years and were predominantly male (67%). Four participants had IPF, two had connective tissue disease-associated ILD. The median time since diagnosis was 3.5 years. Forced vital capacity ranged from 39% to 94% predicted and transfer factor for carbon monoxide ranged from 19% to 84% predicted. Both focus groups included participants on antifibrotics, immunosuppressants and oxygen therapy.
Table 2 summarises the results for all components considered in this study. In the Round 1 survey, 23% (6 out of 26) of components reached our a priori defined consensus and were endorsed by the focus group. These included understanding treatment options for PF; understanding and accessing clinical trials; managing medications, shortness of breath and comorbidities; and accessing community support. Eight new components were suggested by the expert panel: preparation for a medical consultation; monitoring and assessing the disease; awareness of potential noxious exposures; managing pain; managing sexual problems; advice on travelling; how to communicate with others when living with PF; and support for carers and family.
TABLE 2.
Summary of results from Delphi surveys: components of self-management in pulmonary fibrosis
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Consensus status and changes made | |||
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | ||
| Self-management components | |||||
| 1. Understanding PF | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 2. Understanding expected disease course and prognosis | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 3. Understanding treatment options for PF | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 4. Understanding and accessing clinical trials | 4 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 5. Managing medications (including side-effects) | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 6. Managing cough | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 7. Managing shortness of breath | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 8. Managing fatigue | 4 | 1 | 4 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R2 |
| 9. Role and importance of pulmonary rehabilitation | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R2 |
| 10. Role of oxygen therapy | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R2 |
| 11. Managing oxygen therapy | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 12. Reducing the risk of an exacerbation | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 13. Using an action plan | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 14. Role and importance of regular physical activity | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 15. Nutrition and dietary advice | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 16. Smoking cessation advice and support | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R2 |
| 17. Managing activities of daily living | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 18. Managing comorbid medical conditions | 4 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 19. Managing mood | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 20. Role and importance of social support | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 21. Accessing peer support | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 22. Accessing community support | 4 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R1 | ||
| 23. Advance care planning and advance directives | 4 | 1 | 5 | 1 | No consensus |
| 24. Accessing reliable information about PF | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 25. Vaccinations | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | “Role and importance” removed after R1 |
| 26. Recognising an exacerbation | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | “Managing” removed after R1 |
| Items added by HCPs in Round 1 | |||||
| 27. Preparation for a medical consultation | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 28. Monitoring and assessment of the disease | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 29. Awareness of potential noxious exposures | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 30. Managing pain | 3 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 31. Managing sexual problems | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 32. Advice on travelling | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| 33. How to communicate with others when living with PF | 4 | 0 | Consensus achieved in R2 | ||
| 34. Support for carers and family | 4 | 1 | No consensus | ||
| Items added/modified by patient focus group | |||||
| 35. Role and importance of pulmonary rehabilitation and regular physical activity | New item: 9 and 14 combined | ||||
| 36. Managing coexisting medical conditions | “Comorbid” changed to “coexisting” | ||||
Components that achieved a high level of consensus (i.e., IQR=0) are highlighted in orange colour. PF: pulmonary fibrosis; HCP: healthcare professional; IQR: interquartile range; R1: Delphi Round 1; R2: Delphi Round 2.
Minor modifications were made to two components after Round 1. The first related to recognising exacerbations. Whilst experts generally agreed that people with PF could be trained to recognise an exacerbation, some disagreed on how these individuals should self-manage an exacerbation:
I strongly agree with the recognition, but not with managing. The patient should recognise and immediately consult with the specialist.
This component was subsequently modified to “recognising an exacerbation” in the Round 2 survey.
The second component centred around vaccinations. Focus group participants expressed interest in broader aspects of vaccinations than had been presented, including safety, risks and contraindications with medications and other vaccines. The conversation was mainly focused around COVID-19 vaccines:
Everyone says the importance of my pneumonia vaccine which I went and got, but no one has mentioned anything to me about the risk, potential risks due to my condition of the COVID vaccine.
This component was changed to “vaccinations (including role and importance, risks and contraindications)” for the Round 2 survey.
None of the eight statements regarding the format and delivery of a PF self-management package reached consensus in Round 1 (table 3). 28 components along with the eight statements regarding format and delivery methods were included for consideration in Round 2.
TABLE 3.
Summary of results from Delphi surveys: format and delivery of a self-management package in pulmonary fibrosis
| Round 1 | Round 2 | Consensus status | |||
| Median | IQR | Median | IQR | ||
| 1. Components tailored to specific diagnosis | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 2. Components tailored to patient's specific needs | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | Consensus reached in R2 |
| 3. Delivered with support from HCPs | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 4. Delivered by a multidisciplinary team | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 5. Delivered using independent and self-paced learning | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 6. Delivered remotely | 4 | 1 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
| 7. Goal setting and feedback are essential | 4 | 1 | 4 | 0 | Consensus reached in R2 |
| 8. Patient access to personal health information is essential | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | No consensus |
Components that achieved a high level of consensus (i.e., IQR=0) are highlighted in orange colour. HCP: healthcare professional; IQR: interquartile range; R2: Delphi Round 2.
In the Round 2 survey, 18% (5 out of 28) of components reached consensus and were endorsed by the focus group. These included managing fatigue; role and importance of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); role of oxygen therapy; smoking cessation advice and support; and how to communicate with others when living with PF.
In the surveys, managing mood was considered very important to self-management in PF (median score=5), but did not reach consensus (IQR=1). Participants with PF expressed their need for managing mood, and emphasised it was essential for self-management in PF:
Even things like seeking a counsellor or someone to help with, because the mental health decline is major… Something like that in a package, I think would be essential.
Managing mood was therefore listed as an essential component (table 4).
TABLE 4.
Essential, desirable and optional components of self-management in PF
| Essential components (median score ≥4, IQR=0) |
| 1. Understanding treatment options for PF |
| 2. Understanding and accessing clinical trials |
| 3. Managing medications (including side-effects) |
| 4. Role of oxygen therapy |
| 5. Managing shortness of breath |
| 6. Managing fatigue |
| 7. Managing coexisting medical conditions |
| 8. Managing mood |
| 9. Role and importance of pulmonary rehabilitation and regular physical activity |
| 10. Smoking cessation advice and support |
| 11. Accessing community support |
| 12. How to communicate with others when living with PF |
| Desirable components (median score=5, IQR >0) |
| 1. Understanding PF |
| 2. Understanding expected disease course and prognosis |
| 3. Managing oxygen therapy |
| 4. Advance care planning and advance directives |
| 5. Recognising an exacerbation |
| Optional components (median score=4, IQR >0) |
| 1. Managing cough |
| 2. Reducing the risk of an exacerbation |
| 3. Vaccinations |
| 4. Using an action plan |
| 5. Nutrition and dietary advice |
| 6. Managing activities of daily living |
| 7. Managing sexual problems |
| 8. Role and importance of social support |
| 9. Accessing peer support |
| 10. Support for carers and family |
| 11. Accessing reliable information about PF |
| 12. Preparation for a medical consultation |
| 13. Monitoring and assessment of the disease |
| 14. Awareness of potential noxious exposures |
| 15. Advice on travelling |
PF: pulmonary fibrosis; IQR: interquartile range.
In addition, participants with PF highlighted the importance of maintaining regular physical activities after PR:
One of the things I rate as incredibly important in a patient's journey through PF is exercise… I mean what happens afterwards (when PR concludes), do you just give up and go and sit down and watch your favourite TV show, that's no good for you.
Focus group participants also suggested using the term “coexisting” rather than “comorbid” medical conditions as it is more easily understood. Descriptors for the relevant components were altered to reflect these discussions.
Two statements regarding the format and delivery of a PF self-management package reached consensus in the Round 2 survey and were endorsed by the focus group: “the self-management component/s delivered to the patient must be tailored to their specific needs” and “goal setting and feedback are essential for effective self-management in PF”.
Consensus was not achieved for 21 components (IQR >0). Components with a median score of 5 were classified as “desirable”, whilst components with a median score of 4 were classified as “optional” (table 4).
Discussion
Experts in PF and people with PF identified 12 components essential for self-management in PF. These covered areas relating to understanding of treatment options and clinical trials; managing medications and coexisting medical conditions; managing mood, shortness of breath and fatigue; understanding the role of oxygen therapy; the importance of PR and regular physical activity; accessing community support; smoking cessation advice and support; and how to communicate with others when living with PF. All participants agreed that a PF self-management package should be individualised and involve goal setting and feedback.
Self-management has been identified as an important aspect of living with PF [10–12]. Emerging studies have investigated the impact of various self-management interventions such as patient education, action planning, home monitoring and support groups on people with IPF [17, 18]. Improvements in psychological well-being [19, 20], self-efficacy [18], disease knowledge [21], adherence and management of medication [22], and completion of advance care planning [21] have been reported following these interventions. However, this is the first study to gain consensus between HCPs and people with PF regarding essential components for the self-management of PF.
Clinical guidelines recommend the use of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to manage PF including medications, lung transplantation, oxygen therapy, PR, psychosocial support and smoking cessation [23, 24]. Individualised supportive care is also recommended in conjunction with disease-specific treatments to focus on symptom relief, improving quality of life, and end-of-life planning [23, 24]. In this study, most components identified as being essential for PF self-management were also recommended in the guidelines. An exception was advance care planning which although did not reach consensus, was rated by experts as highly important and highlighted in patient focus groups as being important to know “what happens towards the end and what options do you have”. Therefore, information and discussions related to planning end-of-life affairs should be considered. Although the term “palliative care” was seldomly used by participants in this study, some components such as managing medication side-effects, shortness of breath, fatigue and mood may be considered as part of palliative care [23]. Future research should endeavour to further explore the palliative care needs of people with PF. The importance of lung transplantation as a treatment option was also not highlighted in this study although it remains an important life-extending treatment option that should be considered by people living with PF.
Managing mood was identified as essential for self-management by people with PF. The negative impact of PF on psychosocial and emotional aspects of life are frequently reported [7]. Anxiety and depression are prevalent in 31% and 23% of people with ILD, respectively [25]. Whilst medications are available to treat anxiety or low mood, coping strategies [26] and mindfulness practices [27] can also help with acceptance of the disease and improve mood and stress. In addition, PR [28], support groups [20] and disease management programmes [29] can relieve feelings of isolation, anxiety and depression. People who have a lack of disease knowledge, low level of activation for self-management, worse physical symptoms and more comorbidities are at higher risk of anxiety and depression [25, 26, 30]. Therefore, it is important for HCPs to provide support especially to those at risk and refer them to suitable programmes to learn more about their condition and adopt coping and disease management skills.
Maintaining physical activity after PR was also highlighted by people with PF. Many studies have demonstrated short-term benefits of PR on exercise capacity, symptoms and health-related quality of life. However, evidence for long-term benefits is limited [31]. In this study, people with PF emphasised the need of maintaining regular physical activity after completing PR. In an observational study, only 39% of participants continued home exercise and only 11% maintained an exercise programme 12 months after completing PR [32]. A lack of feedback regarding exercise capacity and a lack of access and social support to attend local exercise programmes have been identified as some of the barriers to being physically active [26, 33]. In COPD, participants who successfully completed a 12-month supervised maintenance programme reported that regular assessments were important to remain physically active [34]. Therefore, regular feedback regarding an individual's fitness and accessible exercise programmes may be key facilitators to remain physically active following a PR programme.
Goal setting and feedback were considered essential for effective self-management in this study. Goal setting is a behaviour change technique frequently used with self-monitoring and patient education in self-management interventions to promote positive health behaviours and better management of chronic illnesses [35]. In COPD, improvements in exercise performance, anxiety, uptake of smoking cessation support and success in quitting smoking were seen 6 months following a web-based self-management programme that comprised goal setting and feedback, self-monitoring and patient education, in conjunction with support from HCPs and an online patient forum [36]. An example of goal setting and feedback that might be relevant to people with PF is undertaking regular physical activity. Staying motivated to exercise was a significant challenge highlighted by participants in this study and previous studies [11, 37]. Good self-efficacy is a facilitator to maintaining physical activity [33] and therefore being able to see achievements is important. Previous studies have shown that the use of activity trackers such as pedometers and an exercise diary can improve daily steps when used with goal setting and motivational counselling [38].
Participants in this study agreed that individualisation was essential for self-management in PF. Self-management interventions have been defined as “structured but individualised interventions that often consist of several components aimed at motivating and supporting people to adopt positive health behaviours and develop skills to manage their disease” [39]. Whilst programmes with a structured education component were informative [29], the disease experience, care goals and personal circumstances vary between different individuals [10, 16, 26] and are likely to change over time. Therefore, easy access to information that is tailored to an individual's situation is critical. The role of HCPs in providing relevant information, tailoring and support for self-management remains unclear. Findings from our study suggest it was not seen as essential; however, other studies have reported that easy access to HCPs allowed them to reach out for assistance when required [16, 22]. Given the low degree of activation for self-management reported in a previous study [30] and a lack of awareness of available support being identified as a barrier to accessing self-management support [40], encouragement and support provided by HCPs may be important in self-management.
To our knowledge, this is the first study that gained consensus from both people living with PF and an international, multidisciplinary expert panel of HCPs regarding the essential components for self-management in PF. The Delphi approach allowed for anonymity and participation of individuals from various geographical locations. This study included participants with both IPF and non-IPF diagnoses, with a broad range of lung function, functional capacity and treatment experiences. However, several limitations should be considered. Although we attempted to include a broad range of participants, the experiences and views represented may not reflect those of all people with PF or PF experts. Our virtual focus groups may have led to the exclusion of those not familiar or confident with using technology. However, many of the topics covered in this study have also been discussed by participants with PF in studies that did not involve using technology [11, 12]. In addition, whilst we were able to provide a more in-depth explanation of components to focus group participants, it is possible that HCPs from different countries had different understanding of the components provided in the surveys. However, we did provide HCPs with the option of adding comments on all items, including the possibility of requesting more information on the meaning of items. Lastly, although our study may have benefited from including more participants, there are no established recommendations regarding an optimal sample size for a Delphi process. In previous studies, the number of participants included in an expert panel varied considerably ranging from <10 to hundreds [41, 42]. A similar study achieved consensus on the investigated topics with similar numbers to this study (37 to 43 expert participants and 10 participants in the focus groups) [11]. In addition, having six participants in a focus group does align with some recommendations [43], but more importantly both groups of participants covered a range of expert areas, disease stages, symptoms and treatment experiences.
In conclusion, this study identified 12 components essential for a self-management package in PF and emphasised the importance of individualisation, goal setting and feedback for effective self-management in PF. A range of desirable components were also identified, which may be important for some people living with PF and may be delivered if resources are available. The study findings provide guidance on the design of future PF self-management interventions.
Supplementary material
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary material 00349-2022.SUPPLEMENT (221.6KB, pdf)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude and thank the participants with pulmonary fibrosis and healthcare professionals who participated in this study. We thank Janet Bondarenko (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) for assisting with recruiting participants with pulmonary fibrosis. We would also like to acknowledge the Lung Foundation Australia's Hope Research Fund and Monash University for supporting this work.
Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.
The authors confirm all personal identifiers have been removed or disguised so the persons described are not identifiable and cannot be identified through the details of the story.
Support statement: This work was supported by a grant from the Lung Foundation Australia's Hope Research Fund and a scholarship awarded by Monash University, Australia. These funding sources were not involved in the study design; the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author contributions: J.Y. T. Lee: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing (original draft), project administration and funding acquisition. G. Tikellis: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation and writing (review and editing). Y.H. Khor: resources, methodology and writing (review and editing). A.E. Holland: conceptualisation, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing (review and editing) and supervision.
Conflict of interest: J.Y.T. Lee has no relevant conflict of interest to disclose.
Conflict of interest: G. Tikellis has no relevant conflict of interest to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Y.H. Khor reports fellowship support from an NHMRC Investigator Grant and grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, during the conduct of the study.
Conflict of interest: A.E. Holland has no relevant conflict of interest to disclose.
References
- 1.Travis WD, Costabel U, Hansell DM, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 733–748. 10.1164/rccm.201308-1483ST [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cottin V, Wollin L, Fischer A, et al. Fibrosing interstitial lung diseases: knowns and unknowns. Eur Respir Rev 2019; 28: 180100. 10.1183/16000617.0100-2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration . Australian public assessment report for pirfenidone. https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-pirfenidone-160809.pdf Date last updated: 9 August 2016. Date last accessed: 6 July 2022.
- 4.U.S. Food and Drug Administration . New drug therapy approvals 2020: advancing health through innovation. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/new-drugs-fda-cders-new-molecular-entities-and-new-therapeutic-biological-products/new-drug-therapy-approvals-2020 Date last updated: 1 August 2021. Date last accessed: 6 July 2022.
- 5.Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration . Australian public assessment report for nintedanib (as Esilate). https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/auspar-nintedanib-as-esilate-210226.pdf Date last updated: 26 February 2021. Date last accessed: 6 July 2022.
- 6.Zheng Q, Cox IA, Campbell JA, et al. Mortality and survival in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ERJ Open Res 2022; 8: 00591-2021. 10.1183/23120541.00591-2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lee JYT, Tikellis G, Corte TJ, et al. The supportive care needs of people living with pulmonary fibrosis and their caregivers: a systematic review. Eur Respir Rev 2020; 29: 190125. 10.1183/16000617.0125-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Levenstein JH, McCracken EC, McWhinney IR, et al. The patient-centred clinical method. 1. A model for the doctor-patient interaction in family medicine. Fam Pract 1986; 3: 24–30. doi: 10.1093/fampra/3.1.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Greenhalgh T, Knight M, Inada-Kim M, et al. Remote management of covid-19 using home pulse oximetry and virtual ward support. Brit Med J 2021; 372: n677. 10.1136/bmj.n677 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Delameillieure A, Dobbels F, Vandekerkhof S, et al. Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perspectives on the idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis care journey: a qualitative study. BioMed Central Pulm Med 2021; 21: 93. 10.1186/s12890-021-01431-8. doi: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Holland AE, Watson A, Glaspole I. Comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease: a consensus approach to identify core education topics. Patient Educ Couns 2019; 102: 1125–1130. 10.1016/j.pec.2019.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Burnett K, Glaspole I, Holland A. Understanding the patient's experience of care in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respirology 2019; 24: 270–277. 10.1111/resp.13414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Richard AA, Shea K. Delineation of self-care and associated concepts. J Nurs Scholarsh 2011; 43: 255–264. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2011.01404.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lenferink A, Brusse-Keizer M, van der Valk P, et al. Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017: 8: CD011682. 10.1002/14651858.CD011682.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Yang IA GJ, McDonald CF, McDonald V, et al. The COPD-X Plan: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for the management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 2021. Version 2.64/, 2021. https://copdx.org.au/copd-x-plan/ Date last accessed: 1 May 2022.
- 16.Lee JYT, Tikellis G, Glaspole I, et al. Self-management for pulmonary fibrosis: insights from people living with the disease and healthcare professionals. Patient Educ Couns 2022; 105: 956–964. 10.1016/j.pec.2021.07.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Delameillieure A, Vandekerkhof S, Van Grootven B, et al. Care programs and their components for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review. Respir Res 2021; 22: 229. 10.1186/s12931-021-01815-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kalluri M, Younus S, Archibald N, et al. Action plans in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a qualitative study—‘I do what I can do’. Brit Med J Support Palliat Care 2021; in press [ 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002831]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Moor CC, Mostard RLM, Grutters JC, et al. Home monitoring in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: 393–401. 10.1164/rccm.202002-0328OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Magnani D, Lenoci G, Balduzzi S, et al. Effectiveness of support groups to improve the quality of life of people with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a pre-post test pilot study. Acta Biomed 2017; 88: 5–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Lindell KO, Klein SJ, Veatch MS, et al. Nurse-led palliative care clinical trial improves knowledge and preparedness in caregivers of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021; 18: 1811–1281. 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202012-1494OC [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Duck A, Pigram L, Errhalt P, et al. IPF Care: a support program for patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treated with pirfenidone in Europe. Adv Ther 2015; 32: 87–107. 10.1007/s12325-015-0183-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Jo HE, Troy LK, Keir G, et al. Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement from the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Lung Foundation Australia. Respirology 2017; 22: 1436–1458. 10.1111/resp.13146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bradley B, Branley HM, Egan JJ, et al. Interstitial lung disease guideline: the British Thoracic Society in collaboration with the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Irish Thoracic Society. Thorax 2008; 63: v1–v58. doi: 10.1136/thx.2007.086215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Holland AE, Fiore JF Jr, Bell EC, et al. Dyspnoea and comorbidity contribute to anxiety and depression in interstitial lung disease. Respirology 2014; 19: 1215–1221. 10.1111/resp.12360 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Senanayake S HK, Lewis M, McNarry M, et al. Patients’ experiences of coping with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and their recommendations for its clinical management. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0197660. 10.1371/journal.pone.0197660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sgalla G, Cerri S, Ferrari R, et al. Mindfulness-based stress reduction in patients with interstitial lung diseases: a pilot, single-centre observational study on safety and efficacy. BMJ Open Respir Res 2015; 2: e000065. 10.1136/bmjresp-2014-000065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wallaert B, Duthoit L, Drumez E, et al. Long-term evaluation of home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in patients with fibrotic idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. ERJ Open Res 2019; 5: 00045-2019. http://doi/org/10.1183/23120541.00045-2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lindell KO, Olshansky E, Song M-K, et al. Impact of a disease-management program on symptom burden and health-related quality of life in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and their care partners. Heart Lung 2010; 39: 304–313. 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2009.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bloem AEM, Mostard RLM, Stoot N, et al. Patient activation for self-management in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or sarcoidosis. Respiration 2022; 101: 76–83. 10.1159/000518216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Dowman L, Hill CJ, May A, et al. Pulmonary rehabilitation for interstitial lung disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 2: CD006322. 10.1002/14651858.CD006322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sharp C, McCabe M, Hussain MJ, et al. Duration of benefit following completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in interstitial lung disease: an observational study. QJM 2017; 110: 17–22. 10.1093/qjmed/hcw105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Robinson H, Williams V, Curtis F, et al. Facilitators and barriers to physical activity following pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Nature Partner J Prim Care Respir Med 2018; 28: 19. 10.1038/s41533-018-0085-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Spencer LM, Alison JA, McKeough ZJ. A survey of opinions and attitudes toward exercise following a 12-month maintenance exercise program for people with COPD. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J 2013; 24: 30–35. doi: 10.1097/01823246-201324030-00005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lenzen SA, Daniëls R, van Bokhoven MA, et al. Disentangling self-management goal setting and action planning: a scoping review. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0188822. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188822 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Mitchell KE, Johnson-Warrington V, Singh SJ, et al. A self-management programme for COPD: a randomised controlled trial. Eur Respir J 2014; 44: 1538–1547. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00047814 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kosteli M-C, Heneghan NR, Roskell C, et al. Barriers and enablers of physical activity engagement for patients with COPD in primary care. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 2017; 12: 1019–1031. 10.2147/COPD.S119806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Franssen WMA, Franssen GHLM, Spaas J, et al. Can consumer wearable activity tracker-based interventions improve physical activity and cardiometabolic health in patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2020; 17: 57. 10.1186/s12966-020-00955-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Effing TW, Vercoulen JH, Bourbeau J, et al. Definition of a COPD self-management intervention: International Expert Group consensus. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 46–54. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00025-2016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Jerant AF, von Friederichs-Fitzwater MM, Moore M. Patients’ perceived barriers to active self-management of chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57: 300–307. 10.1016/j.pec.2004.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 401–409. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna H. The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. West Sussex, Blackwell Publishing, 2011; p. 8. 10.1002/9781444392029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th Edn. Singapore, SAGE Publications, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.
Supplementary material 00349-2022.SUPPLEMENT (221.6KB, pdf)