↓ Skip to main content

Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
2 policy sources
1 Wikipedia page


847 Dimensions

Readers on

367 Mendeley
3 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.
Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001117
Pubmed ID

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


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. This review was conducted to examine the strength of evidence supporting Step 6 of the Australian Asthma Management Plan: "Educate and Review Regularly"; to test whether health outcomes are influenced by education and self-management programmes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of asthma self-management programmes, when coupled with regular health practitioner review, on health outcomes in adults with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Randomised trials of self-management education in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. Thirty six trials, which compared self-management education with usual care, were included. Self-management education reduced hospitalisations (relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.82); emergency room visits (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval (0.73 to 0.94); unscheduled visits to the doctor (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.81); days off work or school (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.93); nocturnal asthma (relative risk 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.0.56 to 0.79); and quality of life (standard mean difference 0.29, confidence interval 0.11 to 0.47). Measures of lung function were little changed. Education in asthma self-management which involves self-monitoring by either peak expiratory flow or symptoms, coupled with regular medical review and a written action plan improves health outcomes for adults with asthma. Training programmes that enable people to adjust their medication using a written action plan appear to be more effective than other forms of asthma self-management.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 367 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 353 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 15%
Researcher 54 15%
Student > Bachelor 45 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 9%
Other 83 23%
Unknown 24 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 192 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 9%
Social Sciences 26 7%
Psychology 20 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 4%
Other 45 12%
Unknown 38 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 05 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 14,558,947 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 265,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,558,947 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,021 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 265,537 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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 60% of its contemporaries.