4.0 Article

Effect of peer led programme for asthma education in adolescents: cluster randomised controlled trial

Journal

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 322, Issue 7286, Pages 583-585

Publisher

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7286.583

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine the effect of a peer led programme for asthma education on duality of life and related morbidity in adolescents with asthma. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Six high schools in rural Australia. Participants 272 students with recent wheeze, recruited from a cohort of 1515 students from two school years (mean age 12.5 and 15.5 years); 251 (92.3%) completed the study. Intervention A structured education programme for peers comprising three steps (the Triple A Program). Main outcome measures (Quality of life, school absenteeism, asthma attacks, and lung function. Results When adjusted for year and sex, mean total quality of life scores showed significant improvement in the intervention than control group. Clinically important improvement in quality of life (> 0.5 units) occurred in 25% of students with asthma in the intervention group compared with 12% in the control group (P = 0.01). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% confidence interval 4.5 to 35.7). The effect of the intervention was greatest in students in year 10 and in females. Significant improvements occurred in the activities domain (41% v, 28%) and in the emotions domain (39% v 19%) in males in the intervention group. School absenteeism significantly decreased in the intervention group only Asthma attacks at school increased in the control group only. Conclusion The triple A programme leads to a clinically relevant improvement in quality of life and related morbidity in students with asthma. Wider dissemination of this programme in schools could play an important part in reducing the burden of asthma in adolescents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available