Indigenous healthcare worker involvement for Indigenous adults and children with asthma.

BACKGROUND

Asthma education is regarded as an important step in the management of asthma in national guidelines. Racial, ethnicity and socio-economic factors are associated with markers of asthma severity, including recurrent acute presentations to emergency health facilities. Worldwide, indigenous groups are disproportionately represented in the severe end of the asthma spectrum. Appropriate models of care are important in the successful delivery of services, and are likely contributors to improved outcomes for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether involvement of an indigenous healthcare worker (IHW) in comparison to absence of an IHW in asthma education programs, improves asthma related outcomes in indigenous children and adults with asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The latest search was in January 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing involvement of an indigenous healthcare worker (IHW) in comparison to absence of an IHW in asthma education programs for indigenous people with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors selected data for inclusion, a single author extracted the data. Both review authors independently assessed study quality. We contacted authors for further information. As it was not possible to analyse data as "intention-to-treat", we analysed data as "treatment received".

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies fulfilled inclusion criteria involving 133 children randomised to an asthma education programme involving an IHW, compared to a similar education programme without an IHW. One study was not strictly Indigenous. 110 of these children completed the trials. Children's asthma knowledge score was significantly better in the group that had IHW education compared with control (mean difference 3.30; 95% CI 1.07 to 5.53), parents' asthma knowledge score (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.23; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.87), parents' asthma skill score (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.06) and days absent from school (100% school-aged children in the intervention group missed <7 days, 21% of controls missed 7-14 days, difference = 21%, 95%CI 5-36%). There was no significant difference in mean number of exacerbations (per year) between groups. There was no difference in quality of life or children's asthma skill score; both were limited to one study only and the direction favoured IHW group. There were no studies in adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of IHW in asthma programs targeted for their own ethnic group in 2 small trials was beneficial in improving most, but not all asthma outcomes in children with asthma. It is very likely that involvement of an IHW is beneficial. However as exacerbation frequency was not significantly different between groups, we cannot be confident of the results in all settings. Nevertheless, given the complexity of health outcomes and culture as well as the importance of self-determination for indigenous peoples, the practice of including IHW in asthma education programs for indigenous children and adults with asthma is justified, but should be subject to further randomised controlled trials.