***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Two studies with a total of 84 participants were included: a 12-month RCT of early rehabilitation in adults of mean age 72 years conducted in two centres in England (UK) and a six-month proof-of-concept RCT of an expert patient programme (EPP) in adults of mean age 60 years in a single regional respiratory centre in Northern Ireland (UK). The EPP was delivered in group format once a week for eight weeks using standardised EPP materials plus disease-specific education including airway clearance techniques, dealing with symptoms, exacerbations, health promotion and available support. We did not find any studies that included children. Data aggregation was not possible and findings are reported narratively in the review. For the primary outcomes, both studies reported health-related quality of life, as measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), but there was no clear evidence of benefit. In one study, the mean SGRQ total scores were not significantly different at 6 weeks', 3 months' and 12 months' follow-up (12 months mean difference (MD) -10.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -45.15 to 24.61). In the second study there were no significant differences in SGRQ. Total scores were not significantly different between groups (six months, MD 3.20, 95% CI -6.64 to 13.04). We judged the evidence for this outcome as low or very low. Neither of the included studies reported data on exacerbations requiring antibiotics. For serious adverse events, one study reported more deaths in the intervention group compared to the control group, (intervention: 4 of 8, control: 2 of 12), though interpretation is limited by the low event rate and the small number of participants in each group. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of benefit in terms of frequency of hospital admissions or FEV1 L, based on very low-quality evidence. One study reported self-efficacy using the Chronic Disease Self-Efficacy scale, which comprises 10 components. All scales showed significant benefit from the intervention but effects were only sustained to study endpoint on the Managing Depression scale. Further details are reported in the main review. Based on overall study quality, we judged this evidence as low quality. Neither study reported data on respiratory symptoms, economic costs or adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether self-management interventions benefit people with bronchiectasis. In the absence of high-quality evidence it is advisable that practitioners adhere to current international guidelines that advocate self-management for people with bronchiectasis. Future studies should aim to clearly define and justify the specific nature of self-management, measure clinically important outcomes and include children as well as adults.
Output:

We conducted a search on 13 December 2017 and found just two UK studies that included 84 participants, comparing a self-management approach with normal care for adults with bronchiectasis. One study looked at the impact of an expert patient self-management programme and the other, involving just a small number of participants with bronchiectasis, looked at self-management in combination with exercises to improve lung function. Neither study included children. Health-related quality of life did not improve in either study. Although there were more deaths in the group receiving self-management in one study, the numbers were very small and we do not know whether the difference is meaningful. The number of admissions to hospital, and lung function showed no benefit from self-management. In one of the studies, people receiving self-management felt more empowered to manage their condition. There was no information on the impact of self-management on symptoms of bronchiectasis, adverse events or potential cost savings arising from more effective self-management. There are no studies looking at self-management in children. Overall there is not enough information to assess whether strategies to support self-management may help people with bronchiectasis and further studies are needed. Future studies will need to look at how often flare ups occur, how often antibiotics are prescribed, and how long for, whether people have a better quality of life, and the impact of self-management on costs of care. It is also important to look at self-management for bronchiectasis in children. This review is based on only two small trials and the quality of the studies is very poor. With only two studies looking at very specific approaches to self-management we cannot say with any degree of certainty whether self-management strategies work for people with bronchiectasis, but until further evidence is available we advocate adherence to current international guidelines that recommend self-management for people with bronchiectasis.