↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Limited (information only) patient education programs for adults with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
233 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Limited (information only) patient education programs for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001005
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. At its simplest level, education is limited to the transfer of information about asthma, its causes and its treatment. This review focused on the effects of limited asthma education. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of limited (i.e. information only) asthma education on health outcomes in adults with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Randomised and controlled trials of individual asthma education involving information transfer only in adults over 16 years of age. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for missing information. Eleven trials were included. They were of variable quality. Limited asthma education did not reduce hospitalisation for asthma (weighted mean difference -0.03 average hospitalisations per person per year, 95% confidence interval -0.09 to 0.03). There was no effect on doctor visits, lung function and medication use. The effects on asthma symptoms were variable. There was no reduction in days lost from normal activity, but perceived asthma symptoms did improve after limited asthma education (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.86). In one study, limited asthma education was associated with reduced emergency department visits (weighted mean difference -2.76 average visits per person per year, 95% confidence interval -4.34 to 1.18). Use of limited asthma education as it has been practiced does not appear to improve health outcomes in adults with asthma. However the use of information in the emergency department may be effective, but this needs to be confirmed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 178 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%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 175 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 10%
Other 8 4%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 57 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 60 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 June 2021.
All research outputs
#5,711,089
of 21,376,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,656
of 12,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,446
of 278,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#134
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,376,549 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,041 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 278,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.