↓ 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
3 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
235 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
267 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 267 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 260 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 12%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Researcher 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 76 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 11%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 84 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,357,803
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,971
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,076
of 47,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 47,731 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.