↓ Skip to main content

Educational interventions for asthma in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
253 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 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
Educational interventions for asthma in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000326
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fredric Wolf, James P Guevara, Cyril M Grum, Noreen M Clark, Christopher J Cates

Abstract

Self-management education programs have been developed for children with asthma, but it is unclear whether such programs improve outcomes. To determine the efficacy of asthma self-management education on health outcomes in children. Systematic search of the Cochrane Airways Group's and Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Special Registers of Controlled Trials and hand searches of the reference lists of relevant review articles. Randomized and controlled clinical trials of asthma self-management education programs in children and adolescents aged 2 -18 years. All studies were assessed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were settled by consensus. Study authors were contacted for missing data or to verify methods. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of type and intensity of educational intervention, self-management strategy, trial type, asthma severity, adequacy of follow-up, and study quality. Of 45 trials identified, 32 studies involving 3706 patients were eligible. Asthma education programs were associated with moderate improvement in measures of airflow (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 0.75) and self-efficacy scales (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.57). Education programs were associated with modest reductions in days of school absence (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.04), days of restricted activity (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.08), and emergency room visits (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.09). There was a reduction in nights disturbed by asthma when pooled using a fixed-effects but not a random-effects model. Effects of education were greater for most outcomes in moderate-severe, compared with mild-moderate asthma, and among studies employing peak flow versus symptom-based strategies. Effects were evident within the first 6 months, but for measures of morbidity and health care utilization, were more evident by 12 months. Asthma self-management education programs in children improve a wide range of measures of outcome. Self-management education directed to prevention and management of attacks should be be incorporated into routine asthma care. Conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the various components are limited by the lack of direct comparisons. Future trials of asthma education programs should focus on morbidity and functional status outcomes, including quality of life, and involve direct comparisons of the various components of interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 172 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Researcher 23 13%
Unspecified 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 60 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 44%
Unspecified 24 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 12%
Psychology 17 10%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Other 25 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 November 2011.
All research outputs
#1,947,083
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,159
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,375
of 106,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 106,426 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 56% of its contemporaries.