Walders Natalie, Kercsmar Carolyn, Schluchter Mark, Redline Susan, Kirchner H Lester, Drotar Dennis
National Jewish Medical and Research Center, Denver, CO.
Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH.
Chest. 2006 Feb;129(2):292-299. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.2.292.
To examine the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary intervention for pediatric asthma.
Randomized, controlled study.
Urban tertiary-referral pediatric hospital.
One hundred seventy-five patients with asthma lacking written treatment plans and presenting with asthma-related emergency department visits (two or more) and/or hospitalizations (one or more) in the past year were randomized to a comparison group receiving medical care alone (n = 86) or to an interdisciplinary intervention group receiving medical care, asthma education, and problem-solving therapy (n = 89)
All participants received written asthma management plans, peak flow meters, and spacer devices. The intervention group also received asthma education, an asthma risk profile assessment, brief problem-solving therapy, and access to a 24-h nurse advice line. The primary outcome measure was change in asthma symptoms, and secondary outcomes included health-care utilization and asthma-related quality of life.
Both groups demonstrated significant reductions in asthma symptoms and improvements in quality of life without any between-group differences identified over the course of follow-up. In contrast, the intervention group demonstrated less frequent health-care utilization than the comparison group, with 28% of the intervention group requiring emergency department or inpatient services for asthma compared to 41% of the comparison group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 3.69) over the 12-month follow-up period.
This study examined the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary intervention for undertreated asthma. The intervention did not result in improvements in asthma symptoms, but accomplished modest reductions in the utilization of acute medical care.
探讨多学科干预对小儿哮喘的有效性。
随机对照研究。
城市三级转诊儿科医院。
175例哮喘患者,他们缺乏书面治疗计划,且在过去一年中有两次或更多次与哮喘相关的急诊科就诊和/或一次或更多次住院治疗,被随机分为仅接受医疗护理的对照组(n = 86)和接受医疗护理、哮喘教育及问题解决疗法的多学科干预组(n = 89)。
所有参与者均获得书面哮喘管理计划、峰流速仪和储雾罐装置。干预组还接受哮喘教育、哮喘风险评估、简短的问题解决疗法,并可拨打24小时护士咨询热线。主要结局指标是哮喘症状的变化,次要结局包括医疗保健利用情况和与哮喘相关的生活质量。
两组在随访过程中哮喘症状均显著减轻,生活质量均有所改善,但两组之间未发现差异。相比之下,干预组的医疗保健利用率低于对照组,在12个月的随访期内,干预组有28%的患者因哮喘需要急诊科或住院服务,而对照组为41%(调整后的优势比为1.92;95%置信区间为1.00至3.69)。
本研究探讨了多学科干预对治疗不足的哮喘的有效性。该干预并未改善哮喘症状,但在一定程度上降低了急性医疗护理的利用率。