↓ Skip to main content

Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
170 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0823-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary Pinnock, Hannah L. Parke, Maria Panagioti, Luke Daines, Gemma Pearce, Eleni Epiphaniou, Peter Bower, Aziz Sheikh, Chris J. Griffiths, Stephanie J. C. Taylor

Abstract

Supported self-management has been recommended by asthma guidelines for three decades; improving current suboptimal implementation will require commitment from professionals, patients and healthcare organisations. The Practical Systematic Review of Self-Management Support (PRISMS) meta-review and Reducing Care Utilisation through Self-management Interventions (RECURSIVE) health economic review were commissioned to provide a systematic overview of supported self-management to inform implementation. We sought to investigate if supported asthma self-management reduces use of healthcare resources and improves asthma control; for which target groups it works; and which components and contextual factors contribute to effectiveness. Finally, we investigated the costs to healthcare services of providing supported self-management. We undertook a meta-review (systematic overview) of systematic reviews updated with randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since the review search dates, and health economic meta-analysis of RCTs. Twelve electronic databases were searched in 2012 (updated in 2015; pre-publication update January 2017) for systematic reviews reporting RCTs (and update RCTs) evaluating supported asthma self-management. We assessed the quality of included studies and undertook a meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. A total of 27 systematic reviews (n = 244 RCTs) and 13 update RCTs revealed that supported self-management can reduce hospitalisations, accident and emergency attendances and unscheduled consultations, and improve markers of control and quality of life for people with asthma across a range of cultural, demographic and healthcare settings. Core components are patient education, provision of an action plan and regular professional review. Self-management is most effective when delivered in the context of proactive long-term condition management. The total cost (n = 24 RCTs) of providing self-management support is offset by a reduction in hospitalisations and accident and emergency visits (standard mean difference 0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.34). Evidence from a total of 270 RCTs confirms that supported self-management for asthma can reduce unscheduled care and improve asthma control, can be delivered effectively for diverse demographic and cultural groups, is applicable in a broad range of clinical settings, and does not significantly increase total healthcare costs. Informed by this comprehensive synthesis of the literature, clinicians, patient-interest groups, policy-makers and providers of healthcare services should prioritise provision of supported self-management for people with asthma as a core component of routine care. RECURSIVE: PROSPERO CRD42012002694 ; PRISMS: PROSPERO does not register meta-reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 170 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Other 20 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Other 40 21%
Unknown 37 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Psychology 12 6%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 39 21%
Unknown 47 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 165. 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 18 August 2020.
All research outputs
#125,425
of 16,530,080 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#123
of 2,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,869
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,530,080 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 308,511 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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