4.5 Article

Benefits of an asthma education program provided at primary care sites on asthma outcomes

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 109, 期 8, 页码 991-1000

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2015.05.004

关键词

Asthma; Education; Asthma control; Asthma treatment; Family practice; Primary care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although it is a key-recommendation of all recent asthma guidelines, self management education is still insufficiently offered in primary care settings. Aims of the study: To demonstrate the benefits of an educational program offered at the site of primary care (Family Medicine Clinics-FMC) by trained asthma educators on patient outcomes and healthcare use. Methods: This was a one-year pre-post intervention study. Patients with a diagnosis of mild to moderate asthma were enrolled from six FMC. After an initial encounter by the educator, an assessment of educational needs and a spirometry were done, followed by 3 follow-up visits at 4-6 weeks, 4-6 months and one year. Expiratory flows, asthma control criteria, knowledge about asthma, adherence to medication and healthcare and medication use were assessed at each visit. Results: Data from 124 asthma patients (41M/83F), aged 55 18 years, were analyzed. After initiating the intervention, there was a progressive increase in asthma knowledge and an improvement in medication adherence. The number of unscheduled visits for respiratory problems went from 137 to 33 (P < 0.0001), the number of antibiotic treatments from 112 to 33 (P = 0.0002) and the number of oral corticosteroids treatments from 26 to 8 (NS). Marked improvements were observed in regard to inhaler technique and provision of a written action plan. Conclusion: This study shows that an educational intervention applied at the site of primary care can result in significant improvements in patient asthma outcomes and reduce unscheduled visits and inappropriate use of medications such as antibiotics. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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