↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Self-management education and regular practitioner review 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
2 policy sources
1 Wikipedia page
1 video uploader


972 Dimensions

Readers on

538 Mendeley
3 CiteULike
Self-management education and regular practitioner review for adults with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001117
Pubmed ID

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


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. This review was conducted to examine the strength of evidence supporting Step 6 of the Australian Asthma Management Plan: "Educate and Review Regularly"; to test whether health outcomes are influenced by education and self-management programmes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of asthma self-management programmes, when coupled with regular health practitioner review, on health outcomes in adults with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. Randomised trials of self-management education in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. Thirty six trials, which compared self-management education with usual care, were included. Self-management education reduced hospitalisations (relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.82); emergency room visits (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval (0.73 to 0.94); unscheduled visits to the doctor (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.81); days off work or school (relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.93); nocturnal asthma (relative risk 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.0.56 to 0.79); and quality of life (standard mean difference 0.29, confidence interval 0.11 to 0.47). Measures of lung function were little changed. Education in asthma self-management which involves self-monitoring by either peak expiratory flow or symptoms, coupled with regular medical review and a written action plan improves health outcomes for adults with asthma. Training programmes that enable people to adjust their medication using a written action plan appear to be more effective than other forms of asthma self-management.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 538 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Unknown 524 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 90 17%
Researcher 64 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 12%
Student > Bachelor 63 12%
Student > Postgraduate 36 7%
Other 110 20%
Unknown 111 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 221 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 10%
Social Sciences 29 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 5%
Psychology 22 4%
Other 64 12%
Unknown 123 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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
of 17,977,824 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 272,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,977,824 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 11,801 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 66% 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 272,160 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 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 58% of its contemporaries.