Bailey Emily J, Cates Christopher J, Kruske Sue G, Morris Peter S, Brown Ngiare, Chang Anne B
Child Health Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15(2):CD006580. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006580.pub4.
People with asthma who come from minority groups have poorer asthma outcomes and more asthma related visits to Emergency Departments (ED). Various programmes are used to educate and empower people with asthma and these have previously been shown to improve certain asthma outcomes. Models of care for chronic diseases in minority groups usually include a focus of the cultural context of the individual and not just the symptoms of the disease. Therefore, questions about whether culturally specific asthma education programmes for people from minority groups are effective at improving asthma outcomes, are feasible and are cost-effective need to be answered.
To determine whether culture-specific asthma programmes, in comparison to generic asthma education programmes or usual care, improve asthma related outcomes in children and adults with asthma who belong to minority groups.
We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search was performed in May 2008.
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of culture-specific asthma education programmes with generic asthma education programmes, or usual care, in adults or children from minority groups who suffer from asthma.
Two review authors independently selected, extracted and assessed the data for inclusion. We contacted authors for further information if required.
Four studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. A total of 617 patients, aged from 5 to 59 years were included in the meta-analysis of data. Use of a culture-specific programme was superior to generic programmes or usual care, in improving asthma quality of life scores in adults, pooled WMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.41), asthma knowledge scores in children, WMD 3.30 (95% CI 1.07 to 5.53), and in a single study, reducing asthma exacerbation in children (risk ratio for hospitalisations 0.32, 95%CI 0.15, 0.70).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current limited data show that culture-specific programmes for adults and children from minority groups with asthma, are more effective than generic programmes in improving most (quality of life, asthma knowledge, asthma exacerbations, asthma control) but not all asthma outcomes. This evidence is limited by the small number of included studies and the lack of reported outcomes. Further trials are required to answer this question conclusively.
来自少数群体的哮喘患者哮喘治疗效果较差,因哮喘到急诊科就诊的次数更多。人们采用了各种项目来对哮喘患者进行教育并增强他们的能力,此前已证明这些项目能改善某些哮喘治疗效果。少数群体慢性病护理模式通常注重个体的文化背景,而不仅仅是疾病症状。因此,针对少数群体的具有文化特异性的哮喘教育项目在改善哮喘治疗效果方面是否有效、是否可行以及是否具有成本效益等问题有待解答。
确定与一般哮喘教育项目或常规护理相比,具有文化特异性的哮喘项目能否改善少数群体中患有哮喘的儿童和成人的哮喘相关治疗效果。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、Cochrane Airways Group专业注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、综述文章以及相关文章的参考文献列表。最近一次检索于2008年5月进行。
所有比较针对少数群体中患有哮喘的成人或儿童使用具有文化特异性的哮喘教育项目与一般哮喘教育项目或常规护理的随机对照试验(RCT)。
两位综述作者独立选择、提取并评估纳入数据。如有需要,我们会联系作者获取更多信息。
四项研究符合纳入本综述的条件。共有617名年龄在5至59岁之间的患者纳入了数据的荟萃分析。在改善成人哮喘生活质量评分方面,采用具有文化特异性的项目优于一般项目或常规护理,合并加权均数差(WMD)为0.25(95%可信区间为0.09至0.41);在改善儿童哮喘知识评分方面,WMD为3.30(95%可信区间为1.07至5.53);在一项研究中,具有文化特异性的项目还能减少儿童哮喘发作(住院风险比为0.32,95%可信区间为0.15至0.70)。
目前有限的数据表明,针对少数群体中患有哮喘的成人和儿童的具有文化特异性的项目,在改善大多数(生活质量、哮喘知识、哮喘发作、哮喘控制)但并非所有哮喘治疗效果方面比一般项目更有效。由于纳入研究数量较少且缺乏报告的结果,这一证据存在局限性。需要进一步的试验来最终回答这个问题。