BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the effects of two small-group asthma education interventions (one delivered by specially trained pharmacists (group A) and one delivered by a pharmacist researcher trained as an asthma educator (group B)) with usual care provided by community pharmacists (group C) on clinical and humanistic outcomes for people with asthma. METHODS: Pharmacies were randomly selected to provide either group A, B, or C interventions. Data were collected at baseline, post intervention (groups A and B) and at 6 and 12 weeks (final visit). RESULTS:Forty-eight people with asthma were recruited into groups A (n = 16), B (n = 16), and C (n = 16) and there were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. At 12 weeks there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with severe asthma/poor control in groups A and B compared with group C (56%, 44% and 50% to 25%, 13% and 50% [n = 48, p < 0.05], respectively). In Groups A and B, the proportion of patients with optimal metered dose inhaler (MDI) technique improved from 9% and 14%, respectively, at baseline to 82% and 93% (n = 11, p = 0.02, n = 14, p < 0.001), respectively, at 12 weeks. The proportion of patients with optimal dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique improved in Groups A and B from 0% and 8%, respectively, at baseline to 86% and 92% (n = 7, p < 0.001; n = 13, p = 0.002), respectively, at 12 weeks. No change in inhaler technique was observed for Group C. There were significant improvements in asthma knowledge scores in Groups A and B compared to Group C over time. CONCLUSIONS: Small-group asthma education delivered by pharmacists appears to be more effective than usual care in improving clinical and humanistic asthma outcomes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the effects of two small-group asthma education interventions (one delivered by specially trained pharmacists (group A) and one delivered by a pharmacist researcher trained as an asthma educator (group B)) with usual care provided by community pharmacists (group C) on clinical and humanistic outcomes for people with asthma. METHODS: Pharmacies were randomly selected to provide either group A, B, or C interventions. Data were collected at baseline, post intervention (groups A and B) and at 6 and 12 weeks (final visit). RESULTS: Forty-eight people with asthma were recruited into groups A (n = 16), B (n = 16), and C (n = 16) and there were no significant differences between the groups at baseline. At 12 weeks there was a significant decrease in the proportion of patients with severe asthma/poor control in groups A and B compared with group C (56%, 44% and 50% to 25%, 13% and 50% [n = 48, p < 0.05], respectively). In Groups A and B, the proportion of patients with optimal metered dose inhaler (MDI) technique improved from 9% and 14%, respectively, at baseline to 82% and 93% (n = 11, p = 0.02, n = 14, p < 0.001), respectively, at 12 weeks. The proportion of patients with optimal dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique improved in Groups A and B from 0% and 8%, respectively, at baseline to 86% and 92% (n = 7, p < 0.001; n = 13, p = 0.002), respectively, at 12 weeks. No change in inhaler technique was observed for Group C. There were significant improvements in asthma knowledge scores in Groups A and B compared to Group C over time. CONCLUSIONS: Small-group asthma education delivered by pharmacists appears to be more effective than usual care in improving clinical and humanistic asthma outcomes.
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; Nancy Wilczynski; Tamara Navarro; Nicholas Hobson; Rebecca Jeffery; Arun Keepanasseril; Thomas Agoritsas; Niraj Mistry; Alfonso Iorio; Susan Jack; Bhairavi Sivaramalingam; Emma Iserman; Reem A Mustafa; Dawn Jedraszewski; Chris Cotoi; R Brian Haynes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-11-20