4.2 Article

Effectiveness of an asthma integrated care program on asthma control and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 638-645

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02770903.2014.999084

关键词

Asthma; asthma control; inhaled corticosteroids; integrated care; medication adherence; patient education

资金

  1. Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec under the auspices of the program: Towards Excellence in Asthma Management (TEAM)'' from the Reseau quebecois de l'asthme et de la MPOC - Merck Frosst Canada Inc.
  2. Astra Zeneca Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To measure the effectiveness of an integrated care program for individuals with asthma aged 12-45 years, on asthma control and adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Methods: Researchers used a theoretical model to develop the program and assessed effectiveness at 12 months, using a pragmatic controlled clinical trial design. Forty-two community pharmacists in Quebec, Canada recruited participants with either uncontrolled or mild-to-severe asthma. One group was exposed to the program; another received usual care. Asthma control was measured with the Asthma Control Questionnaire; ICS adherence was assessed with the Morisky medication adherence scale and the medication possession ratio. Program effectiveness was assessed with an intention-to-treat approach using multivariate generalized estimating equation models. Results: Among 108 exposed and 241 non-exposed, 52.2% had controlled asthma at baseline. At 12-months, asthma control had improved in both groups but the interaction between study groups and time was not significant (p = 0.09). The proportion of participants with good ICS adherence was low at baseline. Exposed participants showed improvement in adherence and the interaction between study groups and time was significant (p = 0.02). Conclusion: An integrated intervention, with healthcare professionals collaborating to optimize asthma control, can improve ICS adherence.

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

4.2
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