↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Shared decision‐making for people with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
1 blog
43 X users
6 Facebook pages
2 Wikipedia pages


84 Dimensions

Readers on

566 Mendeley
Shared decision‐making for people with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012330.pub2
Pubmed ID

Kayleigh M Kew, Poonam Malik, Krishnan Aniruddhan, Rebecca Normansell


Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health. To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016. We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions. Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data. We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 566 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 566 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 89 16%
Researcher 64 11%
Student > Bachelor 49 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 8%
Other 29 5%
Other 112 20%
Unknown 179 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 84 15%
Social Sciences 30 5%
Psychology 25 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 4%
Other 71 13%
Unknown 201 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 332,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 280 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 332,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 280 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.