Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis affects 10 to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life, school and work performance, and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. ...Medical costs are large but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma – ARIA guidelines in 2010 prompting its update. Objective To provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. Methods The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patient values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. Results The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides updated and new recommendations about the pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis. It specifically addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or their combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment, the rationale for the choice, and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients may want to review in order to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Conclusions Appropriate treatment of allergic rhinitis may improve patients’ quality of life, school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.
Effectiveness of health programmes can be undermined when the implementation misaligns with local beliefs and behaviours. To design context-driven implementation strategies, we explored beliefs and ...behaviours regarding chronic respiratory disease (CRD) in diverse low-resource settings.
This observational mixed-method study was conducted in Africa (Uganda), Asia (Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam) and Europe (rural Greece and a Roma camp). We systematically mapped beliefs and behaviours using the SETTING-tool. Multiple qualitative methods among purposively selected community members, health-care professionals, and key informants were triangulated with a quantitative survey among a representative group of community members and health-care professionals. We used thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.
We included qualitative data from 340 informants (77 interviews, 45 focus group discussions, 83 observations of community members’ households and health-care professionals’ consultations) and quantitative data from 1037 community members and 204 health-care professionals. We identified three key themes across the settings; namely, (1) perceived CRD identity (community members in all settings except the rural Greek strongly attributed long-lasting respiratory symptoms to infection, predominantly tuberculosis); (2) beliefs about causes (682 65·8% of 1037 community members strongly agreed that tobacco smoking causes symptoms, this number was 198 19·1% for household air pollution; typical perceived causes ranged from witchcraft Uganda to a hot–cold disbalance Vietnam); and (3) norms and social structures (eg, real men smoke Kyrgyzstan and Vietnam).
When designing context-driven implementation strategies for CRD-related interventions across these global settings, three consistent themes should be addressed, each with common and context-specific beliefs and behaviours. Context-driven strategies can reduce the risk of implementation failure, thereby optimising resource use to benefit health outcomes.
European Commission Horizon 2020.
For the Greek, Russian and Vietnamese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
PDF
