@article{MusekampGerlichEhlebrachtKoenigetal.2016,
  author    = {Musekamp, Gunda and Gerlich, Christian and Ehlebracht-K{\"o}nig, Inge and Faller, Hermann and Reusch, Andrea},
  title     = {Evaluation of a self-management patient education program for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial},
  series = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders},
  number    = {55},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12891-016-0903-4},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-146075},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a complex chronic condition that makes high demands on patients' self-management skills. Thus, patient education is considered an important component of multimodal therapy, although evidence regarding its effectiveness is scarce. The main objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of an advanced self-management patient education program for patients with FMS as compared to usual care in the context of inpatient rehabilitation. Methods/Design We conducted a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 rehabilitation clinics. Clusters are groups of patients with FMS consecutively recruited within one week after admission. Patients of the intervention group receive the advanced multidisciplinary self-management patient education program (considering new knowledge on FMS, with a focus on transfer into everyday life), whereas patients in the control group receive standard patient education programs including information on FMS and coping with pain. A total of 566 patients are assessed at admission, at discharge and after 6 and 12 months, using patient reported questionnaires. Primary outcomes are patients' disease- and treatment-specific knowledge at discharge and self-management skills after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include satisfaction, attitudes and coping competences, health-promoting behavior, psychological distress, health impairment and participation. Treatment effects between groups are evaluated using multilevel regression analysis adjusting for baseline values. Discussion The study evaluates the effectiveness of a self-management patient education program for patients with FMS in the context of inpatient rehabilitation in a cluster randomized trial. Study results will show whether self-management patient education is beneficial for this group of patients.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{AlmadeJongJelusicetal.2016,
  author    = {Alma, Harma and de Jong, Corina and Jelusic, Danijel and Wittmann, Michael and Schuler, Michael and Flokstra-de Blok, Bertine and Kocks, Janwillem and Schultz, Konrad and van der Molen, Thys},
  title     = {Health status instruments for patients with COPD in pulmonary rehabilitation: defining a minimal clinically important difference},
  series = {npj Primary Care Respiration Medicine},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {npj Primary Care Respiration Medicine},
  number    = {16041},
  doi       = {10.1038/npjpcrm.2016.41},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-166327},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) defines to what extent change on a health status instrument is clinically relevant, which aids scientists and physicians in measuring therapy effects. This is the first study that aimed to establish the MCID of the Clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Questionnaire (CCQ), the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) in the same pulmonary rehabilitation population using multiple approaches. In total, 451 COPD patients participated in a 3-week Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) programme (58 years, 65\% male, 43 pack-years, GOLD stage II/III/IV 50/39/11\%). Techniques used to assess the MCID were anchor-based approaches, including patient-referencing, criterion-referencing and questionnaire-referencing, and the distribution-based methods standard error of measurement (SEM), 1.96SEM and half standard deviation (0.5s.d.). Patient- and criterion-referencing led to MCID estimates of 0.56 and 0.62 (CCQ); 3.12 and 2.96 (CAT); and 8.40 and 9.28 (SGRQ). Questionnaire-referencing suggested MCID ranges of 0.28-0.61 (CCQ), 1.46-3.08 (CAT) and 6.86-9.47 (SGRQ). The SEM, 1.96SEM and 0.5s.d. were 0.29, 0.56 and 0.46 (CCQ); 3.28, 6.43 and 2.80 (CAT); 5.20, 10.19 and 6.06 (SGRQ). Pooled estimates were 0.52 (CCQ), 3.29 (CAT) and 7.91 (SGRQ) for improvement. MCID estimates differed depending on the method used. Pooled estimates suggest clinically relevant improvements needing to exceed 0.40 on the CCQ, 3.00 on the CAT and 7.00 on the SGRQ for moderate to very severe COPD patients. The MCIDs of the CAT and SGRQ in the literature might be too low, leading to overestimation of treatment effects for patients with COPD.},
  language  = {en}
}