BACKGROUND: Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.
SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.
MAIN RESULTS: Five cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.All interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.Quanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.Schools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).Available information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Asthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.Complete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.
BACKGROUND: Action on the social determinants of health is considered a necessary approach to improving health equity. Most of the social determinants of health lie outside the sphere of the health sector and thus collaboration with governmental and non-governmental sectors outside of health are required to develop policies and programs to improve health equity. Case studies of intersectoral action are available, however there is limited information about the impact of intersectoral action on the social determinants of health and health equity.
METHODS: Search and retrieval of literature published between 2001 and 2011 was conducted in 6 databases. A staged screening of titles and abstracts, and later full-text, was conducted by two independent reviewers. Reviewers independently assessed the quality of the articles deemed relevant for inclusion. Data were extracted and synthesized in narrative format for all included studies, conducted by one reviewer and checked by another.
RESULTS: 17 articles of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. One systematic review investigating partnership interventions found mixed and limited impacts on health outcomes. Primary studies evaluating the impact of upstream and midstream interventions showed mixed effects. Downstream interventions were generally moderately effective in increasing the availability and use of services by marginalized communities.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature evaluating the impact of intersectoral action on health equity is limited. The included studies identified reveal a moderate to no effect on the social determinants of health. The evidence on the impact of intersectoral action on health equity is even more limited. The lack of evidence should not be interpreted as a lack of effect. Rigorous evaluations of intersectoral action are needed to strengthen the evidence base of this public health practice.
BACKGROUND: In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally developed partnerships which target changes in health outcomes and behaviours.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes in any population or age group.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, AMED, ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DoPHER, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, IBSS, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, OpenGrey, PsycINFO, Rehabdata, Social Care Online, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI and Web of Science from 1966 through to January 2012. 'Snowballing' methods were used, including expert contact, citation tracking, website searching and reference list follow-up.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported individual health outcomes arising from interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies compared to standard care. Studies were selected independently in duplicate, with no restriction on population subgroup or disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified (28,212 participants). Only two were considered to be at low risk of bias. Eleven studies contributed data to the meta-analyses but a narrative synthesis was undertaken for all 16 studies. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one showed health benefit, four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured but no clear overall health gain, and one showed no evidence of health gain. Four studies considered lifestyle improvements, of which one showed some limited short-term improvements, two failed to show health gains for the intervention population, and one showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies considered chronic disease management and all failed to demonstrate health gains. Three studies considered environmental improvements and adjustments, of which two showed some health improvements and one did not.
Meta-analysis of three studies exploring the effect of collaboration on mortality showed no effect (pooled relative risk of 1.04 in favour of control, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Analysis of five studies (with high heterogeneity) looking at the effect of collaboration on mental health resulted in a standardised mean difference of -0.28, a small effect favouring the intervention (95% CI -0.51 to -0.06). From two studies, there was a statistically significant but clinically modest improvement in the global assessment of function symptoms score scale, with a pooled mean difference (on a scale of 1 to 100) of -2.63 favouring the intervention (95% CI -5.16 to -0.10).
For physical health (6 studies) and quality of life (4 studies) the results were not statistically significant, the standardised mean differences were -0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.07) and -0.08 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.27), respectively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.
Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: Randomized clinical trial (RCT) data reviewed for outcomes and processes associated with asthma educational and behavioral interventions provided by different types of health professionals.
METHODS: Cochrane Collaboration, MEDLINE, PUBMED, Google Scholar search from 1998 to 2009 identified 1650 articles regarding asthma educational and behavioral interventions resulting in 249 potential studies and following assessment produced a final sample of 50 RCTs.
RESULTS: Approaches, intended outcomes, and program providers vary greatly. No rationale provided in study reports for the selection of specific outcomes, program providers, or program components. Health care utilization and symptom control have been the most common outcomes assessed. Specific providers favor particular teaching approaches. Multidisciplinary teams have been the most frequent providers of asthma interventions. Physician-led interventions were most successful for outcomes related to the use of health care. Multidisciplinary teams were best in achieving symptom reduction and quality of life. Lay persons were best in achieving self-management/self-efficacy outcomes. Components most frequently employed in successful programs are skills to improve patient-clinician communication and education to enhance patient self-management. Fifty percent of interventions achieved reduction in the use of health care and one-third in symptom control. A combination approach including self-management and patient-clinician communication involving multidisciplinary team members may have the greatest effect on most outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: The extent to which and how different providers achieve asthma outcomes through educational and behavioral interventions is emerging from recent studies. Health care use and symptom control are evolving as the gold standard for intervention outcomes. Development of self-management and clinician-patient communication skills are program components associated with success across outcomes and providers.
Teachers and school staff should be competent in managing asthma in schools. Demonstrated low levels of asthma knowledge mean that staff may not know how best to protect a child with asthma in their care, or may fail to take appropriate action in the event of a serious attack. Education about asthma could help to improve this knowledge and lead to better asthma outcomes for children.
OBJECTIVES:
To assess the effectiveness and safety of asthma education programmes for school staff, and to identify content and attributes underpinning them.
SEARCH METHODS:
We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention to educate school staff about asthma versus a control group. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
At least two review authors screened the searches, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes for the quantitative synthesis were emergency department (ED) or hospital visits, mortality and asthma control; we graded the main results and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table. We planned a qualitative synthesis of intervention characteristics, but study authors were unable to provide the necessary information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we narratively described skewed data.
MAIN RESULTS:
Five cluster-RCTs of 111 schools met the review eligibility criteria. Investigators measured outcomes in participating staff and often in children or parents, most often at between 1 and 12 months.All interventions were educational programmes but duration, content and delivery varied; some involved elements of training for pupils or primary care providers. We noted risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition biases, although to a differing extent across studies and outcomes.Quanitative and qualitative analyses were limited. Only one study reported visits to the ED or hospital and provided data that were too skewed for analysis. No studies reported any deaths or adverse events. Studies did not report asthma control consistently, but results showed no difference between groups on the paediatric asthma quality of life questionnaire (mean difference (MD) 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.31; 1005 participants; we downgraded the quality of evidence to low for risk of bias and indirectness). Data for symptom days, night-time awakenings, restricted activities of daily living and school absences were skewed or could not be analysed; some mean scores were better in the trained group, but most differences between groups were small and did not persist to 24 months.Schools that received asthma education were more adherent to asthma policies, and staff were better prepared; more schools that had received staff asthma training had written asthma policies compared with control schools, more intervention schools showed improvement in measures taken to prevent or manage exercise-induced asthma attacks and more staff at intervention schools reported that they felt able to administer salbutamol via a spacer. However, the quality of the evidence was low; results show imbalances at baseline, and confidence in the evidence was limited by risk of bias and imprecision. Staff knowledge was higher in groups that had received asthma education, although results were inconsistent and difficult to interpret owing to differences between scales (low quality).Available information about the interventions was insufficient for review authors to conduct a meaningful qualitative synthesis of the content that led to a successful intervention, or of the resources required to replicate results accurately.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Asthma education for school staff increases asthma knowledge and preparedness, but studies vary and all available evidence is of low quality. Studies have not yet captured whether this improvement in knowledge has led to appreciable benefits over the short term or the longer term for the safety and health of children with asthma in school. Randomised evidence does not contribute to our knowledge of content or attributes of interventions that lead to the best outcomes, or of resources required for successful implementation.Complete reporting of the content and resources of educational interventions is essential for assessment of their effectiveness and feasibility for implementation. This applies to both randomised and non-randomised studies, although the latter may be better placed to observe important clinical outcomes such as exacerbations and mortality in the longer term.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
