Asthma self-management

Do patient education programs always have an impact?

William C. Bailey, Connie L. Kohler, James M. Richards, Richard A. Windsor, C. Michael Brooks, Lynn B Gerald, Beverly Martin, Darlene M. Higgins, Tiepu Liu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

43 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: During the past 15 years, programs to improve self- management practices in adults with asthma have reported improvement in functional status and reduction of inappropriate use of health care services. However, these programs usually represent an ideal approach, applying multiple patient education methods. Consequently, when these programs are found to be efficacious, it is important to replicate the programs as well as to evaluate less complex methods that may be more appropriate for nonacademic health care settings. Methods: We compared the following 3 standardized self- management treatments in a randomized, controlled trial: (1) a replication of the self-management program developed at a university medical center that was previously shown to be efficacious; (2) a modified version of this program including only the core elements; and (3) a usual-care program. Outcome measures included medication and inhaler regimen adherence, asthma symptoms, respiratory illness, functional status, and use of health care resources. Results: All 3 groups improved on measures of respiratory illnesses, use of health care services, and functional status. Patients in both education groups did no better than the usual-care group. Conclusions: The results are inconsistent with the results of the first asthma self-management study at this institution and with those of efficacy studies of similar programs. Two factors, selection of the patient population and historical changes in asthma treatment, most likely contributed to the lack of impact of the self- management programs. As a result of the improved standards for usual care due to both factors, the opportunity to effect patient outcomes was substantially reduced.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2422-2428
Number of pages7
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume159
Issue number20
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 8 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Education
Self Care
Asthma
Delivery of Health Care
Health Services
Health Resources
Nebulizers and Vaporizers
Patient Selection
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Education
Therapeutics
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Bailey, W. C., Kohler, C. L., Richards, J. M., Windsor, R. A., Brooks, C. M., Gerald, L. B., ... Liu, T. (1999). Asthma self-management: Do patient education programs always have an impact? Archives of Internal Medicine, 159(20), 2422-2428. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.159.20.2422

Asthma self-management : Do patient education programs always have an impact? / Bailey, William C.; Kohler, Connie L.; Richards, James M.; Windsor, Richard A.; Brooks, C. Michael; Gerald, Lynn B; Martin, Beverly; Higgins, Darlene M.; Liu, Tiepu.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 159, No. 20, 08.11.1999, p. 2422-2428.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bailey, WC, Kohler, CL, Richards, JM, Windsor, RA, Brooks, CM, Gerald, LB, Martin, B, Higgins, DM & Liu, T 1999, 'Asthma self-management: Do patient education programs always have an impact?', Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 159, no. 20, pp. 2422-2428. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.159.20.2422
Bailey, William C. ; Kohler, Connie L. ; Richards, James M. ; Windsor, Richard A. ; Brooks, C. Michael ; Gerald, Lynn B ; Martin, Beverly ; Higgins, Darlene M. ; Liu, Tiepu. / Asthma self-management : Do patient education programs always have an impact?. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 1999 ; Vol. 159, No. 20. pp. 2422-2428.
@article{d70b0d43848d430ca5b4df978119cae5,
title = "Asthma self-management: Do patient education programs always have an impact?",
abstract = "Background: During the past 15 years, programs to improve self- management practices in adults with asthma have reported improvement in functional status and reduction of inappropriate use of health care services. However, these programs usually represent an ideal approach, applying multiple patient education methods. Consequently, when these programs are found to be efficacious, it is important to replicate the programs as well as to evaluate less complex methods that may be more appropriate for nonacademic health care settings. Methods: We compared the following 3 standardized self- management treatments in a randomized, controlled trial: (1) a replication of the self-management program developed at a university medical center that was previously shown to be efficacious; (2) a modified version of this program including only the core elements; and (3) a usual-care program. Outcome measures included medication and inhaler regimen adherence, asthma symptoms, respiratory illness, functional status, and use of health care resources. Results: All 3 groups improved on measures of respiratory illnesses, use of health care services, and functional status. Patients in both education groups did no better than the usual-care group. Conclusions: The results are inconsistent with the results of the first asthma self-management study at this institution and with those of efficacy studies of similar programs. Two factors, selection of the patient population and historical changes in asthma treatment, most likely contributed to the lack of impact of the self- management programs. As a result of the improved standards for usual care due to both factors, the opportunity to effect patient outcomes was substantially reduced.",
author = "Bailey, {William C.} and Kohler, {Connie L.} and Richards, {James M.} and Windsor, {Richard A.} and Brooks, {C. Michael} and Gerald, {Lynn B} and Beverly Martin and Higgins, {Darlene M.} and Tiepu Liu",
year = "1999",
month = "11",
day = "8",
doi = "10.1001/archinte.159.20.2422",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "159",
pages = "2422--2428",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "20",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Asthma self-management

T2 - Do patient education programs always have an impact?

AU - Bailey, William C.

AU - Kohler, Connie L.

AU - Richards, James M.

AU - Windsor, Richard A.

AU - Brooks, C. Michael

AU - Gerald, Lynn B

AU - Martin, Beverly

AU - Higgins, Darlene M.

AU - Liu, Tiepu

PY - 1999/11/8

Y1 - 1999/11/8

N2 - Background: During the past 15 years, programs to improve self- management practices in adults with asthma have reported improvement in functional status and reduction of inappropriate use of health care services. However, these programs usually represent an ideal approach, applying multiple patient education methods. Consequently, when these programs are found to be efficacious, it is important to replicate the programs as well as to evaluate less complex methods that may be more appropriate for nonacademic health care settings. Methods: We compared the following 3 standardized self- management treatments in a randomized, controlled trial: (1) a replication of the self-management program developed at a university medical center that was previously shown to be efficacious; (2) a modified version of this program including only the core elements; and (3) a usual-care program. Outcome measures included medication and inhaler regimen adherence, asthma symptoms, respiratory illness, functional status, and use of health care resources. Results: All 3 groups improved on measures of respiratory illnesses, use of health care services, and functional status. Patients in both education groups did no better than the usual-care group. Conclusions: The results are inconsistent with the results of the first asthma self-management study at this institution and with those of efficacy studies of similar programs. Two factors, selection of the patient population and historical changes in asthma treatment, most likely contributed to the lack of impact of the self- management programs. As a result of the improved standards for usual care due to both factors, the opportunity to effect patient outcomes was substantially reduced.

AB - Background: During the past 15 years, programs to improve self- management practices in adults with asthma have reported improvement in functional status and reduction of inappropriate use of health care services. However, these programs usually represent an ideal approach, applying multiple patient education methods. Consequently, when these programs are found to be efficacious, it is important to replicate the programs as well as to evaluate less complex methods that may be more appropriate for nonacademic health care settings. Methods: We compared the following 3 standardized self- management treatments in a randomized, controlled trial: (1) a replication of the self-management program developed at a university medical center that was previously shown to be efficacious; (2) a modified version of this program including only the core elements; and (3) a usual-care program. Outcome measures included medication and inhaler regimen adherence, asthma symptoms, respiratory illness, functional status, and use of health care resources. Results: All 3 groups improved on measures of respiratory illnesses, use of health care services, and functional status. Patients in both education groups did no better than the usual-care group. Conclusions: The results are inconsistent with the results of the first asthma self-management study at this institution and with those of efficacy studies of similar programs. Two factors, selection of the patient population and historical changes in asthma treatment, most likely contributed to the lack of impact of the self- management programs. As a result of the improved standards for usual care due to both factors, the opportunity to effect patient outcomes was substantially reduced.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033536901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033536901&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinte.159.20.2422

DO - 10.1001/archinte.159.20.2422

M3 - Article

VL - 159

SP - 2422

EP - 2428

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 20

ER -