Bruzzese Jean-Marie, Evans David, Wiesemann Sandra, Pinkett-Heller Marcia, Levison Moshe J, Du Yunling, Fitzpatrick Cecilia, Krigsman Gary, Ramos-Bonoan Carmen, Turner Levonne, Mellins Robert B
New York University Child Study Center, 215 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10016, USA.
J Sch Health. 2006 Aug;76(6):307-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00118.x.
School-based asthma interventions delivered by nonschool staff have been successful but are limited in their reach because of the cost and effort of bringing in outside educators and their inability to establish improved communication about asthma between schools, families, and primary care providers (PCPs). To address these problems, Columbia University and the New York City Department of Education and the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene undertook a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a comprehensive school-based asthma program. In this intervention, school nurses were trained to facilitate the establishment of a preventive network of care for children with asthma by coordinating communications and fostering relationships between families, PCPs, and school personnel. PCPs also received training regarding asthma management. There was limited support for this model. While case detection helped nurses identify additional students with asthma and nurses increased the amount of time spent on asthma-related tasks, PCPs did not change their medical management of asthma. Few improvements in health outcomes were achieved. Relative to controls, 12-months posttest intervention students had a reduction in activity limitations due to asthma (-35% vs -9%, p < .05) and days with symptoms (26% vs 39%, p = .06). The intervention had no impact on the use of urgent health care services, school attendance, or caregiver's quality of life. There were also no improvements at 24-months postintervention. We faced many challenges related to case detection, training, and implementing preventive care activities, which may have hindered our success. We present these challenges, describe how we coped with them, and discuss the lessons we learned.
由非学校工作人员实施的以学校为基础的哮喘干预措施取得了成功,但由于引入外部教育工作者的成本和精力,以及他们无法在学校、家庭和初级保健提供者(PCP)之间建立关于哮喘的更好沟通,其覆盖范围有限。为了解决这些问题,哥伦比亚大学、纽约市教育局以及纽约市卫生和精神卫生部门进行了一项随机对照试验,以测试一项全面的以学校为基础的哮喘项目的效果。在这项干预措施中,学校护士接受培训,通过协调沟通并促进家庭、初级保健提供者和学校工作人员之间的关系,来推动为哮喘儿童建立预防性护理网络。初级保健提供者也接受了关于哮喘管理的培训。对该模式的支持有限。虽然病例发现帮助护士识别出更多哮喘学生,且护士增加了在哮喘相关任务上花费的时间,但初级保健提供者并未改变他们对哮喘的医疗管理。健康结果几乎没有改善。与对照组相比,干预组学生在测试后12个月因哮喘导致的活动受限有所减少(-35%对-9%,p<.05),有症状的天数也有所减少(26%对39%,p = .06)。该干预措施对紧急医疗服务的使用、学校出勤率或照顾者的生活质量没有影响。干预后24个月也没有改善。我们面临着许多与病例发现、培训和实施预防性护理活动相关的挑战,这些可能阻碍了我们的成功。我们呈现这些挑战,描述我们如何应对它们,并讨论我们吸取的教训。