↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Options for self-management education 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 tweeter
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Options for self-management education for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather Powell, Peter G Gibson

Abstract

Asthma education and self-management are key recommendations of asthma management guidelines because they improve health outcomes. There are several different modalities for the delivery of asthma self-management education. We evaluated programmes that: 1) Optimised asthma control through inhaled corticosteroid use by regular medical review or optimised asthma control by individualised written action plans 2) Used written self-management plans based on peak expiratory flow self-monitoring compared with symptom self-monitoring 3) Compared different options for the delivery of optimal self-management programmes. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Randomised trials of asthma self-management education interventions in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. 1) Six studies compared optimal self-management allowing self-adjustment of medications according to an individualised written action plan to adjustment of medications by a doctor. These two styles of asthma management gave equivalent effects for hospitalisation, ER visits, unscheduled doctor visits and nocturnal asthma. 2) Self-management using a written action plan based on PEF was found to be equivalent to self-management using a symptoms based written action plan in the six studies which compared these interventions. 3) Three studies compared self-management options. In one, that provided optimal therapy but tested the omission of regular review, the latter was associated with more health centre visits and sickness days. In another, comparing high and low intensity education, the latter was associated with more unscheduled doctor visits. In a third, no difference in health care utilisation or lung function was reported between verbal instruction and written action plans. Optimal self-management allowing for optimisation of asthma control by adjustment of medications may be conducted by either self-adjustment with the aid of a written action plan or by regular medical review. Individualised written action plans based on peak expiratory flow are equivalent to action plans based on symptoms. Reducing the intensity of self-management education or level of clinical review may reduce its effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 188 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 20%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 39 20%
Unknown 24 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 12%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Psychology 7 4%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 29 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 17 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,218,121
of 17,977,824 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,890
of 11,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,325
of 239,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,977,824 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 239,699 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 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 53% of its contemporaries.