↓ 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
1047 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
596 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
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
Authors

Peter G Gibson, Heather Powell, Amanda Wilson, Michael J Abramson, P Haywood, Adrian Bauman, Michael J Hensley, 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. 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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 596 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 582 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 95 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 12%
Researcher 65 11%
Student > Bachelor 63 11%
Student > Postgraduate 39 7%
Other 116 19%
Unknown 148 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 227 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 9%
Social Sciences 32 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 25 4%
Psychology 23 4%
Other 72 12%
Unknown 161 27%
Attention Score in Context

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
#2,108,691
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,540
of 12,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,179
of 44,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 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 12,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 44,341 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.