Osman L M, Abdalla M I, Beattie J A, Ross S J, Russell I T, Friend J A, Legge J S, Douglas J G
Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen.
BMJ. 1994 Feb 26;308(6928):568-71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.308.6928.568.
To evaluate a personalised computer supported education programme for asthma patients.
Pragmatic randomised trial comparing outcomes over 12 months between patients taking part in an enhanced education programme (four personalised booklets, sent by post) and patients receiving conventional oral education at outpatient or surgery visits.
Hospital outpatient clinics and general practices in north east Scotland.
801 adults attending hospital outpatient clinics, with a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by a chest physician and pulmonary function reversibility of at least 20%.
Numbers of hospital admissions, consultations with general practitioner for asthma, steroid courses used, bronchodilators and inhaled steroids prescribed, days of restricted activity, and disturbed nights.
Patients with asthma judged too severe for randomisation between clinic care and integrated care and thus retained in clinic care had 54% fewer hospital admissions after receiving enhanced education than did the control group (95% confidence interval 30% to 97%; P < 0.05) over the study year. Patients had not all spent a full year as "educated" patients within the study year: when "educated days" were controlled for, annual admission rates for the entire enhanced education group were 49% (31% to 78%) of those in the control group. Among patients with sleep variation, sleep disturbance in the education group in the week before a regular review was 80% (65% to 97%) of that in the control group. There was no significant difference in days of restricted activity, prescription of bronchodilators or inhaled steroids, use of oral steroids, or number of general practitioner consultations for asthma, and no significant interaction between ownership of a peak flow meter and education.
An asthma education programme based on computerised booklets can reduce hospital admissions and improve morbidity among hospital outpatients.
评估一项针对哮喘患者的个性化计算机辅助教育项目。
实用随机试验,比较参与强化教育项目(通过邮寄发送四本个性化手册)的患者与在门诊或手术就诊时接受传统口头教育的患者在12个月内的结局。
苏格兰东北部的医院门诊和全科诊所。
801名到医院门诊就诊的成年人,经胸科医生确诊为哮喘,且肺功能可逆性至少为20%。
住院次数、因哮喘与全科医生的会诊次数、使用类固醇疗程数、开具的支气管扩张剂和吸入性类固醇药物、活动受限天数以及睡眠受干扰的夜晚数。
在研究年度内,被判定病情过重而无法在门诊护理和综合护理之间进行随机分组并因此留在门诊护理的哮喘患者,在接受强化教育后,其住院次数比对照组少54%(95%置信区间为30%至97%;P<0.05)。在研究年度内,并非所有患者都作为“接受教育”的患者度过了一整年:当对“接受教育天数”进行控制后,整个强化教育组的年度住院率为对照组的49%(31%至78%)。在睡眠有变化的患者中,在定期复查前一周,教育组的睡眠障碍为对照组的80%(65%至97%)。在活动受限天数、支气管扩张剂或吸入性类固醇药物的处方、口服类固醇的使用或因哮喘与全科医生的会诊次数方面,没有显著差异,并且峰值流量计的拥有情况与教育之间没有显著交互作用。
基于计算机化手册的哮喘教育项目可减少住院次数并改善医院门诊患者的发病率。