↓ Skip to main content

Chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
347 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007988.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux, Chantal Arditi, Grégoire Gex, Pierre-Olivier Bridevaux, Bernard Burnand

Abstract

The burden of asthma on patients and healthcare systems is substantial. Interventions have been developed to overcome difficulties in asthma management. These include chronic disease management programmes, which are more than simple patient education, encompassing a set of coherent interventions that centre on the patients' needs, encouraging the co-ordination and integration of health services provided by a variety of healthcare professionals, and emphasising patient self-management as well as patient education. To evaluate the effectiveness of chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE (MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations), EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched up to June 2014. We also handsearched selected journals from 2000 to 2012 and scanned reference lists of relevant reviews. We included individual or cluster-randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, and controlled before-after studies comparing chronic disease management programmes with usual care in adults over 16 years of age with a diagnosis of asthma. The chronic disease management programmes had to satisfy at least the following five criteria: an organisational component targeting patients; an organisational component targeting healthcare professionals or the healthcare system, or both; patient education or self-management support, or both; active involvement of two or more healthcare professionals in patient care; a minimum duration of three months. After an initial screen of the titles, two review authors working independently assessed the studies for eligibility and study quality; they also extracted the data. We contacted authors to obtain missing information and additional data, where necessary. We pooled results using the random-effects model and reported the pooled mean or standardised mean differences (SMDs). A total of 20 studies including 81,746 patients (median 129.5) were included in this review, with a follow-up ranging from 3 to more than 12 months. Patients' mean age was 42.5 years, 60% were female, and their asthma was mostly rated as moderate to severe. Overall the studies were of moderate to low methodological quality, because of limitations in their design and the wide confidence intervals for certain results.Compared with usual care, chronic disease management programmes resulted in improvements in asthma-specific quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.37), asthma severity scores (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30), and lung function tests (SMD 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30). The data for improvement in self-efficacy scores were inconclusive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.11). Results on hospitalisations and emergency department or unscheduled visits could not be combined in a meta-analysis because the data were too heterogeneous; results from the individual studies were inconclusive overall. Only a few studies reported results on asthma exacerbations, days off work or school, use of an action plan, and patient satisfaction. Meta-analyses could not be performed for these outcomes. There is moderate to low quality evidence that chronic disease management programmes for adults with asthma can improve asthma-specific quality of life, asthma severity, and lung function tests. Overall, these results provide encouraging evidence of the potential effectiveness of these programmes in adults with asthma when compared with usual care. However, the optimal composition of asthma chronic disease management programmes and their added value, compared with education or self-management alone that is usually offered to patients with asthma, need further investigation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 347 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 342 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 14%
Researcher 46 13%
Student > Bachelor 42 12%
Student > Postgraduate 23 7%
Other 71 20%
Unknown 55 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 116 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 17%
Psychology 26 7%
Social Sciences 20 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 3%
Other 45 13%
Unknown 73 21%

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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,877,510
of 14,539,453 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,627
of 10,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,380
of 235,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,539,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,993 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 235,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.