↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Culture-specific programs for children and adults from minority groups who have asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
Title
Culture-specific programs for children and adults from minority groups who have asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006580.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabrielle B McCallum, Peter S Morris, Ngiare Brown, Anne B Chang

Abstract

People with asthma who come from minority groups often have poorer asthma outcomes, including more acute asthma-related doctor visits for flare-ups. Various programmes used to educate and empower people with asthma have previously been shown to improve certain asthma outcomes (e.g. adherence outcomes, asthma knowledge scores in children and parents, and cost-effectiveness). Models of care for chronic diseases in minority groups usually include a focus of the cultural context of the individual, and not just the symptoms of the disease. Therefore, questions about whether tailoring asthma education programmes that are culturally specific for people from minority groups are effective at improving asthma-related outcomes, that are feasible and cost-effective need to be answered. To determine whether culture-specific asthma education programmes, in comparison to generic asthma education programmes or usual care, improve asthma-related outcomes in children and adults with asthma who belong to minority groups. We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, Embase, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search fully incorporated into the review was performed in June 2016. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of culture-specific asthma education programmes with generic asthma education programmes, or usual care, in adults or children from minority groups with asthma. Two review authors independently selected, extracted and assessed the data for inclusion. We contacted study authors for further information if required. In this review update, an additional three studies and 220 participants were added. A total of seven RCTs (two in adults, four in children, one in both children and adults) with 837 participants (aged from one to 63 years) with asthma from ethnic minority groups were eligible for inclusion in this review. The methodological quality of studies ranged from very low to low. For our primary outcome (asthma exacerbations during follow-up), the quality of evidence was low for all outcomes. In adults, use of a culture-specific programme, compared to generic programmes or usual care did not significantly reduce the number of participants from two studies with 294 participants for: exacerbations with one or more exacerbations during follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 1.26), hospitalisations over 12 months (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.22) and exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.73). However, use of a culture-specific programme, improved asthma quality of life scores in 280 adults from two studies (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.36) (although the MD was less then the minimal important difference for the score). In children, use of a culture-specific programme was superior to generic programmes or usual care in reducing severe asthma exacerbations requiring hospitalisation in two studies with 305 children (rate ratio 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.95), asthma control in one study with 62 children and QoL in three studies with 213 children, but not for the number of exacerbations during follow-up (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.66) or the number of exacerbations (MD 0.18, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.62) among 100 children from two studies. The available evidence showed that culture-specific education programmes for adults and children from minority groups are likely effective in improving asthma-related outcomes. This review was limited by few studies and evidence of very low to low quality. Not all asthma-related outcomes improved with culture-specific programs for both adults and children. Nevertheless, while modified culture-specific education programs are usually more time intensive, the findings of this review suggest using culture-specific asthma education programmes for children and adults from minority groups. However, more robust RCTs are needed to further strengthen the quality of evidence and determine the cost-effectiveness of culture-specific programs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 229 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 17%
Researcher 32 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Other 15 6%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 61 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 16%
Psychology 16 7%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 68 29%

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 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,501,141
of 16,004,888 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,894
of 11,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,205
of 274,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,004,888 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,354 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 274,536 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 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 54% of its contemporaries.