↓ Skip to main content

A randomized field trial of acindes: A child-centered training model for children with chronic illnesses (asthma and epilepsy)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, June 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Title
A randomized field trial of acindes: A child-centered training model for children with chronic illnesses (asthma and epilepsy)
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, June 2000
DOI 10.1007/bf02390539
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. A. Tieffenberg, E. I. Wood, A. Alonso, M. S. Tossutti, M. F. Vicente

Abstract

A randomized field trial of a child-centered model of training for self-management of chronic illnesses was conducted of 355 Spanish-speaking school-aged children, between 6 and 15 years old, with moderate to severe asthma and epilepsy, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The model, based on play techniques, consists of five weekly meetings of 8-10 families, with children's and parents' groups held simultaneously, coordinated by specially trained teachers and outside the hospital environment. Children are trained to assume a leading role in the management of their health; parents learn to be facilitators; and physicians provide guidance, acting as counselors. Group activities include games, drawings, stories, videos, and role-playing. Children and parents were interviewed at home before the program and 6 and 12 months after the program, and medical and school records were monitored for emergency and routine visits, hospitalizations, and school absenteeism. In asthma and epilepsy, children in the experiment showed significant improvements in knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors compared to controls (probability of experimental gain over controls = .69 for epilepsy and .56 for asthma, with sigma2 = .007 and .016, respectively). Parent participants in the experiment had improved knowledge of asthma (39% before vs. 58% after) and epilepsy (22% before vs. 56% after), with a probability of gain = .62 (sigma2 = .0026) with respect to the control group. Similar positive outcomes were found in fears of child death (experimental 39% before vs. 4% after for asthma, 69% before vs. 30% after for epilepsy), as well as in disruption of family life and patient-physician relationship, while controls showed no change. Regarding clinical variables, for both asthma and epilepsy, children in the experimental group had significantly fewer crises than the controls after the groups (P = .036 and P = .026). Visits to physicians showed a significant decrease for those with asthma (P = .048), and emergency visits decreased for those with epilepsy (P = .046). An 18-item Children Health Locus of Control Scale (CHLCS) showed a significant increase in internality in experimental group children with asthma and epilepsy (P < .01), while controls did not change or performed worse 12 months after the program. School absenteeism was reduced significantly for those with asthma and epilepsy (for the group with asthma, fall/winter P = .006, and spring P = .029; for the group with epilepsy, P = .011).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 174 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 15%
Student > Master 27 15%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 45 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 26%
Psychology 19 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Social Sciences 16 9%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 55 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,095,883
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#374
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,056
of 39,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 39,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them