↓ Skip to main content

Limited (information only) patient education programs for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Limited (information only) patient education programs for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001005
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter G Gibson, Heather Powell, Amanda Wilson, Michael J Hensley, Michael J Abramson, Adrian Bauman, E. Haydn Walters, Jennifer JL Roberts

Abstract

A key component of many asthma management guidelines is the recommendation for patient education and regular medical review. A number of controlled trials have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of asthma education programmes. These programmes improve patient knowledge, but their impact on health outcomes is less well established. At its simplest level, education is limited to the transfer of information about asthma, its causes and its treatment. This review focused on the effects of limited asthma education. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of limited (i.e. information only) asthma education on health outcomes in adults with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Randomised and controlled trials of individual asthma education involving information transfer only in adults over 16 years of age. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Eleven trials were included. They were of variable quality. Limited asthma education did not reduce hospitalisation for asthma (weighted mean difference -0.03 average hospitalisations per person per year, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.03). There was no effect on doctor visits, lung function and medication use. The effects on asthma symptoms were variable. There was no reduction in days lost from normal activity, but perceived asthma symptoms did improve after limited asthma education (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.86). In one study, limited asthma education was associated with reduced emergency department visits (weighted mean difference -2.76 average visits per person per year, 95% confidence interval -4.34 to 1.18). Use of limited asthma education as it has been practiced does not appear to improve health outcomes in adults with asthma. However the use of information in the emergency department may be effective, but this needs to be confirmed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Other 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Social Sciences 7 10%
Unspecified 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,639,766
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,889
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,298
of 268,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 268,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.