Improving asthma management among African-American children via a community health worker model: findings from a Chicago-based pilot intervention

Peer support in health care and prevention: cultural, organizational, and dissemination issues

As reviewed in the article by Perry and colleagues (2014) in this volume, ample evidence has documented the contributions of peer support (PS) to health, health care, and prevention. Building on that foundation, this article discusses characteristics, contexts, and dissemination of PS, including (a) fundamental aspects of the social support that is often central to it; (b) cultural influences and ways PS can be tailored to specific groups; (c) key features of PS and the importance of ongoing support and backup of peer supporters and other factors related to its success; (d) directions in which PS can be expanded beyond prevention and chronic disease management, such as in mental health or interventions to prevent rehospitalization; (e) other opportunities through the US Affordable Care Act, such as through patient-centered medical homes and chronic health homes; and (f) organizational and policy issues that will govern its dissemination. All these demonstrate the extent to which PS needs to reflect its contexts--intended audience, health problems, organizational and cultural settings--and, thus, the importance of dissemination policies that lead to flexible response to contexts rather than constraint by overly prescriptive guidelines.

Cost-consequence analysis of multimodal interventions with environmental components for pediatric asthma in the state of Maryland

BACKGROUND

Applied environmental strategies for asthma control are often expensive, but may save longer-term healthcare costs. Whether these savings outweigh additional costs of implementing these strategies is uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate the expenditures and savings of environmental interventions for asthma in the state of Maryland. Direct costs included hospitalizations, emergency room, and clinic visits. Indirect expenditures included costs of lost work productivity and travel incurred during the usage of healthcare services. We used decision analysis, assuming a hypothetical cohort of the approximated 49,290 pediatric individuals in Maryland with persistent asthma, to compare costs and benefits of environmental asthma interventions against the standard of care (no intervention) from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

Three interventions among nine articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review: 1) environmental education using medical professionals; 2) education using non-medical personnel; and 3) multi-component strategy involving education with non-medical personnel, allergen-impermeable covers, and pest management. All interventions were found to be cost-saving relative to the standard of care. Home environmental education using non-medical professionals yielded the highest net savings of $14.1 million (95% simulation interval (SI): $-.283 million, $19.4 million), while the multi-component intervention resulted in the lowest net savings of $8.1 million (95% SI: $-4.9 million, $15.9 million). All strategies were most sensitive to the baseline number of hospitalizations in those not receiving targeted interventions for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited environmental reduction strategies for asthma are likely to be cost-saving to the healthcare system in Maryland and should be considered for broader scale-up in other economically similar settings.