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 We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data.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.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid assessment zone (RAZ) to mitigate emergency department (ED) overcrowding.
METHODS: Electronic databases, controlled trial registries, conference proceedings, study references, experts in the field and correspondence with authors were used to identify potentially relevant studies. Intervention studies, in which a RAZ was used to influence length of stay, physician initial assessment and patients left without being seen, were included. Mean differences were calculated and reported with corresponding 95% CIs; individual statistics are presented as RR with associated 95% CI.
RESULTS: From 14 446 potentially relevant studies, four studies were included in the review. The quality of one study was appraised as moderately high; others were rated as weak. Two studies showed that a RAZ was associated with a reduction of 20 min (95% CI: -47.2 to 7.2) in the ED length of stay; in one non-randomised clinical trial (RCT), a 192 min reduction was reported (95% CI: -211.6 to -172.4). Physician initial assessment showed a reduction of 8.0 min; 95% CI: -13.8 to -2.2 in the RCT and a reduction of 33 min (95% CI: -42.3 to -23.6) and 18 min (95% CI: -22.2 to -13.8) respectively were found in two non-RCTs. There was a reduction in the risk of patient leaving without being seen (RCT.: RR=0.93, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.12; non-RCT.: RR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the results are consistent, and low acuity patients seem to benefit the most from a RAZ, the available evidence to support its implementation is limited.
CONTEXT: Asthma self-management education is critical for high-quality asthma care for children. A number of studies have assessed the effectiveness of providing asthma education in schools to augment education provided by primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on school-based asthma education programs. METHODS: As our data sources, we used 3 databases that index peer-reviewed literature: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Inclusion criteria included publication in English and enrollment of children aged 4 to 17 years with a clinical diagnosis of asthma or symptoms consistent with asthma. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. Synthesizing findings across studies was difficult because the characteristics of interventions and target populations varied widely, as did the outcomes assessed. In addition, some studies had major methodologic weaknesses. Most studies that compared asthma education to usual care found that school-based asthma education improved knowledge of asthma (7 of 10 studies), self-efficacy (6 of 8 studies), and self-management behaviors (7 of 8 studies). Fewer studies reported favorable effects on quality of life (4 of 8 studies), days of symptoms (5 of 11 studies), nights with symptoms (2 of 4 studies), and school absences (5 of 17 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Although findings regarding effects of school-based asthma education programs on quality of life, school absences, and days and nights with symptoms were not consistent, our analyses suggest that school-based asthma education improves knowledge of asthma, self-efficacy, and self-management behaviors.
OBJECTIVES: Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for the management of pediatric and adult asthma, there remains a significant gap between accepted best practices for asthma care and actual care delivered to asthma patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence that quality improvement (QI) strategies can improve the processes and outcomes of outpatient care for children and adults with asthma.
DATA SOURCES: We searched four literature sources: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group database (1/1966 to 4/2006), MEDLINE(®) (1/1966 to 4/2006), the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group database (1/1966 to 5/2006), and bibliographies of retrieved articles.
REVIEW METHODS: We sought English language studies of interventions that included one or more QI strategies (e.g., patient education, provider education, audit and feedback) for the outpatient management of children or adults with asthma. Included studies were required to be either randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after trials, or interrupted time series trials. The four primary types of outcomes of interest were measures of clinical status (e.g., asthma symptoms, spirometric measures); measures of functional status (e.g., days lost from work or school); measures of health services utilization (e.g., hospital admissions); and measures of adherence to guidelines (e.g., number of patients given prescriptions for inhaled corticosteroids).
RESULTS: We identified 3843 potentially relevant articles, of which 200 articles describing 171 studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies exhibited substantial variation in terms of the types of strategies evaluated. However, using broad, pragmatic categories for quality improvement strategies, 100 included at least some component of patient education, 94 studies included some component of self-monitoring or self-management, 27 included some component of organizational change, and 19 included provider education, among others. The studies also evaluated heterogeneous patient populations, but these could be broadly categorized into those that targeted children or adolescents with asthma or their families (79 studies) and outpatient populations with asthma comprised typically of adults (92 studies). Among all studies of pediatric asthma evaluating self-monitoring, self-management, or patient education interventions, those directed at parents or caregivers, as opposed to at the children themselves and not their parents, were more likely to be associated with a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes (e.g., improvements in asthma symptoms or spirometric measures (p=0.02)). Self-monitoring, self-management, or patient education interventions for general populations or adults with asthma were associated with improvements in percent predicted FEV1 (weighted mean difference: 2.92 percent predicted FEV1; 95% CI 0.92, 4.92; p=0.004) and mean peak flow (weighted mean difference: 27.95 L/min; 95% CI 10.75, 45.15; (p=0.01). QI interventions that are based explicitly on a theoretical framework, provide multiple educational sessions, have longer durations, and use combinations of instructional modalities (e.g., small group teaching with role-playing and handouts) are more likely to result in improvements for patients than interventions lacking these characteristics. When taken as a group, the improvements reported in the included studies were often statistically significant but possibly only of borderline clinical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of types of QI interventions have been found to improve the outcomes and processes of care for children and adults with asthma. Young children with asthma benefit most from QI strategies that also include their caregivers or parents. General populations with asthma can have clinically significant improvements in spirometric measures after participating in self-monitoring, self-management, or patient education interventions—especially interventions that are based on theoretical frameworks, are of relatively long durations, and utilize combinations of educational modalities.
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
