4.7 Article

Mediators of asthma outcomes

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY
卷 129, 期 3, 页码 S136-S141

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.12.987

关键词

Adherence; self-management skills; asthma patient education; stress

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  3. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  4. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  5. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  6. Merck Childhood Asthma Network
  7. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  8. US Environmental Protection Agency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patient adherence, the level of asthma self-management skills, exposure to stress, and depression can have considerable influence on a wide range of asthma outcomes and thus are considered asthma outcome mediators. Objective: National Institutes of Health institutes and other federal agencies convened an expert group to recommend standardized measures for 7 domains of asthma clinical research outcomes measures. Although the review of mediators of these outcomes was not within the scope of any specific outcome topic, a brief summary is presented so that researchers might consider potential mediators. Methods: We prepared a summary of key mediators of asthma outcomes based on expertise and knowledge of the literature. Results: The rationale for including measures of adherence, self-management skills, and exposures to stress in asthma clinical research is presented, along with a brief review of instruments for collecting this information from clinical research participants. Conclusions: Appropriate measurement of adherence, self-management skills, and exposures to stress will enhance characterization of study participants and provide information about the potential impact these factors can have on mediating the effects of treatment interventions. (J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 129: S136-41.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据