Asthma self-management model: randomized controlled trial

Impact of pharmaceutical care for asthma patients on health-related outcomes: An umbrella review

Recent systematic reviews suggest that pharmacists' interventions in asthma patients have a positive impact on health-related outcomes. Nevertheless, the association is not well established, and the role of clinical pharmacists is poorly represented. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to identify published systematic reviews assessing the impact of pharmacists' interventions on health-related outcomes measured in asthma patients. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2022. Systematic reviews of all study designs and settings were included. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Two investigators performed study selection, quality assessment and data collection independently. Nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was rated as high in one, low in two, and critically low in six. Reviews included 51 primary studies reporting mainly quality of life, asthma control, lung capacity, and therapeutic adherence. Only four studies were carried out in a hospital setting and only two reviews stated the inclusion of severe asthma patients. The quality of the systematic reviews was generally low, and this was the major limitation of this overview of systematic reviews. However, solid evidence supports that pharmaceutical care improves health-related outcomes in asthma patients.

Health education interventions to promote health literacy in adults with selected non-communicable diseases living in low-to-middle income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Health illiteracy is an important contributor to the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs); in particular in settings where health illiteracy is part of a perpetuating system of risk factors. Interventions that promote health literacy may provide an important tool in the primary and secondary prevention of NCDs. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of health literacy interventions on health literacy in the management of patients with selected NCDs living in low-to-middle income countries (LMIC).

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched (October 29, 2020) for RCTs aimed at improving health literacy in adults with NCDs in LMICs. Eligible NCDs included those pertaining to cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic respiratory disease (CRD) or Diabetes. Studies were included that explicitly focussed on improving health literacy, and reported comprehensive measures of health literacy, or components thereof (ie, knowledge, attitude or behaviour). Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted for continuous outcome measures (Hedges-g).

RESULTS

The completed search yielded 2573 unique results of which 53 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies included patients with cancer (n = 1, 2%), CRD (n = 8, 15%), CVD (n = 11, 21%) or Diabetes (n = 33, 62%). A significant (P < .01) summary effect was found for disease knowledge (SES = 1.27 [n = 23, 95%CI = 1.05-1.49]), attitude (SES = 1.17 [n = 20, 95%CI = 0.88-1.47]), and behaviour (SES = 1.20 [n = 31, 95%CI = 0.94-1.46]).

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the conclusion that there is compelling evidence, in particular, for patients with Diabetes, that health-literacy interventions are effective in promoting disease knowledge, attitude and behaviour across four chronic conditions that drive the burden of NCDs.

Personalized Medication Adherence Management in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review of Effective Interventions and Development of a Practical Adherence Toolkit

BACKGROUND

The management of medication nonadherence of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains challenging. Given the multitude of underlying causes, a personalized approach is required. The Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI) can identify reasons for nonadherence, but it does not provide guidance regarding how to act effectively after results.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a practical, evidence-based decision support toolkit for health care professionals managing adult patients with asthma and/or COPD, by matching TAI-identified adherence barriers to proven effective adherence-enhancing interventions.

METHODS

We performed a literature review in PubMed and Embase identifying interventions that enhanced medication adherence in adult patients with asthma and/or COPD. Randomized controlled trials published in English with full texts available were included. Effective interventions assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool were categorized, matched with specific TAI responses, and developed into a practical TAI Toolkit. The Toolkit was assessed for content and usability (System Usability Scale) by a multidisciplinary group of health care professionals.

RESULTS

In total, 40 randomized controlled trials were included in the review. Seven effective interventions categories were identified, informing the TAI Toolkit: reminders, educational interventions, motivational strategies, feedback on medication use, shared decision-making, simplifying the medication regimen, and multiple component interventions. Health care professionals rated the TAI Toolkit with a mean System Usability Scale score of 71.4 (range, 57.5-80.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence can be improved using the different interventions that the TAI Toolkit helps select. The TAI Toolkit was well-received by health care professionals. Further research is required to test its validity, practicality, and effectiveness in practice.

Community Pharmacist Telephonic Medication Reviews with Uncontrolled Asthma Patients: A Pilot Study

This study reports the process of telephonic medication reviews conducted by community pharmacists for patients with asthma. The study occurred at an independent community chain in association with a Missouri Medicaid consulting group. Participants were identified utilizing claims data and met the National Quality Forum criteria for uncontrolled moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. A pharmacist performed the initial encounter via telephone which included a knowledge questionnaire, symptom control assessment, and medication review. Pharmacists identified drug-related problems (DRPs) and faxed recommendations to patients’ primary care providers (PCPs). Thirty days later, pharmacists called to follow up with the patients and faxed PCPs to resolve any outstanding DRPs, new DRPs, or recommendations. Questionnaire scores and symptom control assessments were compared and analyzed utilizing a paired t-test, Chi-squared test, or Fisher’s exact test. The number and categories of DRPs, recommendations made by pharmacists, and intervention time were reported. Fourteen participants completed initial encounters with twelve completing follow-up. The majority answered ‘yes’ to at least one symptom control assessment question indicating partially controlled to uncontrolled asthma. The average knowledge assessment score was 5.17 out of 7 initially and 5.42 for the follow-up. Pharmacists identified 43 DRPs and made 41 recommendations with a mean intervention time of 65 min.

The Effectiveness of a Family-Based Asthma Self-Management Program in Enhancing the Asthma Health Outcomes in School-Age Children

This quasi-experimental study aimed to evaluate a family-based asthma self-management program, based on the individual and family self-management theory and the McMaster model of family functioning. Children aged 7 to 12 with uncontrolled asthma and their families were recruited from an outpatient pulmonary department of a university hospital in Thailand. Thirty-seven child-parent pairs were randomly assigned to three sessions for a period of two months of the family-based asthma self-management program, while 37 child-parent pairs were assigned to the control group. Data were collected at baseline and after implementation at two months by using the Childhood Asthma Control Questionnaire and the Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the measurement of pulmonary function was performed using peak flow meters. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was employed to analyze the mean difference between the experimental and control groups. The results indicated significant increased asthma control status, pulmonary function, and quality of life in the children from baseline to after implementation in the experimental group that participated in the family-based asthma self-management program. Significant improvement in these three asthma health outcomes was also seen in the experimental group when compared to the control group. It was seen that the family-based asthma self-management program is useful for promoting the self-management of school-age children, enabling the control of symptoms, and enhancing health outcomes regarding asthma.

Effect of pharmacist-led interventions on medication adherence and inhalation technique in adult patients with asthma or COPD: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), disease control is still suboptimal-incorrect inhalation technique and medication non-adherence are two important reasons for this outcome. Pharmacists' interventions have been shown to have a positive effect on the clinical outcomes of asthma and COPD. Quantitative assessment of the efficacy of pharmacist-led interventions, mainly on inhalation techniques and medication adherence, is needed. Evidence for different interventions is not totally conclusive, and no results of theory-based adherence promotion interventions for asthma and COPD have been published. The objective of our study is to evaluate the effect of pharmacist-led interventions on asthma and COPD management, focusing mainly on inhalation technique and medication adherence, and whether the content of interventions (categorized based on Information-Motivation-Behavioural skills (IMB) model) affects the effectiveness and whether the IMB model is worthy of clinical promotion and application in adults with asthma or COPD.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that involved pharmacist-led interventions among patients with asthma or COPD. We used database-specific vocabulary (eg, Medical Subject Headings) and free text terms expanding from 'asthma', 'COPD' and 'pharmacist' to identify relevant articles. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. The meta-analysis was performed in Review Manager 5.3 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019144793.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Thirteen studies were eligible for qualitative analysis, and 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pharmacist-led interventions showed a positive effect on medication adherence (1.34 [95% CI 1.18-1.53], P < .0001) and inhalation technique (1.85 [95% CI 1.57-2.17], P < .00001) in COPD and asthma patients. In the subgroup meta-analysis, significant medication adherence improvement was found only in COPD patients (1.41 [1.24-1.61], P < .0001). The subgroup meta-analysis also noted that interventions that included all three Information-Motivation-Behavioural skills (IMB) constructs had a significant improvement in medication adherence (1.41 [1.24-1.61], P < .0001). Subgroup meta-analysis conducted between different diseases, different intervention contents, and different measure tools did not significantly change the heterogeneity.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led interventions can improve inhalation technique in adult asthma and COPD patients. Significant improvement in medication adherence was found only in COPD patients. The effect among asthmatic patients requires further study. Interventions based on the IMB model may be worthy of clinical promotion and application. More future research is needed to establish solid evidence base for effective interventions and uniform measurement of medication adherence.

Community pharmacy interventions for health promotion: effects on professional practice and health outcomes

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacies are an easily accessible and cost-effective platform for delivering health care worldwide, and the range of services provided has undergone rapid expansion in recent years. Thus, in addition to dispensing medication, pharmacy workers within community pharmacies now give advice on a range of health-promoting behaviours that aim to improve health and to optimise the management of long-term conditions. However, it remains uncertain whether these health-promotion interventions can change the professional practice of pharmacy workers, improve health behaviours and outcomes for pharmacy users and have the potential to address health inequalities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of health-promotion interventions to change community pharmacy workers' professional practice and improve outcomes for users of community pharmacies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, six other databases and two trials registers to 6 February 2018. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and contacted study authors to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of health-promotion interventions in community pharmacies targeted at, or delivered by, pharmacy workers that aimed to improve the health-related behaviour of people attending the pharmacy compared to no treatment, or usual treatment received in the community pharmacy. We excluded interventions where there was no interaction between pharmacy workers and pharmacy users, and those that focused on medication use only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care review group for both data collection and analysis. We compared intervention to no intervention or to usual treatment using standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) (higher scores represent better outcomes for pharmacy user health-related behaviour and quality of life, and lower scores represent better outcomes for clinical outcomes, costs and adverse events). Interpretation of effect sizes (SMD) was in line with Cochrane recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 randomised trials with 16,220 participants, described in 83 reports. Forty-nine studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in middle-income countries. We found no studies that had been conducted in low-income countries. Most interventions were educational, or incorporated skills training. Interventions were directed at pharmacy workers (n = 8), pharmacy users (n = 13), or both (n = 36). The clinical areas most frequently studied were diabetes, hypertension, asthma, and modification of cardiovascular risk. Duration of follow-up of interventions was often unclear. Only five studies gave details about the theoretical basis for the intervention, and studies did not provide sufficient data to comment on health inequalities. The most common sources of bias were lack of protection against contamination - mainly in individually randomised studies - and inadequate blinding of participants. The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was moderate. We downgraded the certainty because of the heterogeneity across studies and evidence of potential publication bias. Professional practice outcomes We conducted a narrative analysis for pharmacy worker behaviour due to high heterogeneity in the results. Health-promotion interventions probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour (2944 participants; 9 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to no intervention. These studies typically assessed behaviour using a simulated patient (mystery shopper) methodology. Pharmacy user outcomes Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in health-related behaviours of pharmacy users when compared to usual treatment (SMD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.72; I² = 89%; 10 trials; 2138 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). These interventions probably also lead to a slight improvement in intermediate clinical outcomes, such as levels of cholesterol or glycated haemoglobin, for pharmacy users (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.21; I² = 90%; 20 trials; 3971 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We identified no studies that evaluated the impact of health-promotion interventions on event-based clinical outcomes, such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or the psychological well-being of pharmacy users. Health-promotion interventions probably lead to a slight improvement in quality of life for pharmacy users (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.50; I²= 82%; 10 trials, 2687 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events No studies reported adverse events for either pharmacy workers or pharmacy users. Costs We found that health-promotion interventions are likely to be cost-effective, based on moderate-certainty evidence from five of seven studies that reported an economic evaluation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Health-promotion interventions in the community pharmacy context probably improve pharmacy workers' behaviour and probably have a slight beneficial effect on health-related behaviour, intermediate clinical outcomes, and quality of life for pharmacy users. Such interventions are likely to be cost-effective and the effects are seen across a range of clinical conditions and health-related behaviours. Nevertheless the magnitude of the effects varies between conditions, and more effective interventions might be developed if greater consideration were given to the theoretical basis of the intervention and mechanisms for effecting behaviour change.

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

Pharmacists and medication adherence in asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The Lancet Asthma Commission highlighted that non-adherence remains a persistent barrier within asthma care. Medical consultations remain pivotal in addressing non-adherence, but interest in additional adherence support from pharmacists is increasing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate how effective pharmacist-led interventions are in improving medication adherence in adults with asthma.Studies were included if they had adult participants with asthma, pharmacist-led or collaborative care interventions, randomised controlled trial designs comparing interventions with usual pharmacist care, and a medication adherence outcome. We analysed adherence data using the standardised mean difference (d) and the remaining data were synthesised narratively.From 1159 records, 11 were included in the narrative synthesis and nine in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis for adherence produced a medium effect size of d=0.49 (se=0.08, 95% CI 0.35-0.64, p<0.0001) with low statistical heterogeneity.In line with the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach, interventions targeted to address both the perceptions and practicalities that influence individual motivation and ability to adhere were more effective. Contextual factors (country and healthcare setting) were also influential. Our findings suggest that with adequate remuneration and integration into asthma care, pharmacists can help improve adherence in asthma.

Levels of knowledge about asthma of parents of asthmatic children

Objective

To evaluate the levels of knowledge about asthma of parents of school children.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out with parents of children with medical diagnosis of asthma (mild, moderate and severe), followed up at an outpatient referral center for childhood asthma in the Southern region of Brazil (Asthma Group). Parents of children with asthma in remission and healthy children were also selected (Control Group). The Newcastle Asthma Knowledge Questionnaire (NAKQ) questionnaire was applied in both groups.

Results

A total of 154 parents of children participated in the study; in that, 62 (40.26%) in the Asthma Group, and 92 (59.74%) in the Control Group, with a mean age of 35.60±10.03 years. Of these, 132 (85.7%) were female, and 72 (46.8%) parents studied up to high school. The average score of level of knowledge was 18.06±4.11 points. Only 30.5% parents had acceptable levels of knowledge about asthma, which were more prevalent in the Asthma Group than in the Control Group (41.9% versus 22.8%, p=0.01). The mean score in Newcastle Asthma Knowledge Questionnaire (NAKQ) was higher in the Asthma Group (19.32±3.92 versus 17.21±4.03, p=0.001), respectively. The parents with mild and moderate asthmatic children scored more than those of severe asthma (19.5 and 19.9 versus 18.2 points, p=0.02).

Conclusion

Most parents had an unsatisfactory level of knowledge about asthma, which reinforces the need for changes in public asthma management programs.

Impact of community pharmacists' interventions on asthma self-management care

BACKGROUND

Asthma self-management is aimed to improve the quality and effectiveness of asthma care by supporting the patients to manage their illness by themselves.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of pharmacist-delivered counselling on patients knowledge and beliefs about the medicines, adherence level, and asthma control.

METHODS

A prospective intervention study was conducted in community pharmacies. A total of 90 patients completed the study. Four questionnaires were used: (1) Beliefs about medicines questionnaire (BMQ), (2) Knowledge of asthma and asthma medicine (KAM), (3) Asthma control test (ACT), and (4) 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale questionnaire (MMAS-8). Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 3 months later.

RESULTS

Low level of adherence and poor asthma control were determined initially. Better asthma control was significantly associated with higher adherence level, lower concerns regarding the medication use, and knowledge of triggers. Statistically significant improvement was found after 3 months in patients knowledge of asthma and its medications, their attitude towards medications (decrease in harm, overuse and concern; increase in necessity score), asthma control score (increased from 19 to 20, p < 0.05) and level of adherence (MMAS-8 score decreased from 3 to 2 p < 0.05). Better asthma control was achieved in 60% of patients. Sixteen patients (18%) were transferred from poor to well-controlled asthma, implying no need for patients' referral to the doctor and no additional cost for the health system.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved disease control could be a result of enhanced knowledge and understanding of the disease-medication relationship, improved inhalation technique, and support on patients' adherence. Acquired knowledge and skills, as well as improved attitude, empowered patients to take a more active part in asthma management. Education in further patients' follow-up should consider topics tailored to the patients' characteristics, needs, and prior counselling schedule with issues discussed.

Personalised asthma action plans for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

A key aim of asthma care is to empower each person to take control of his or her own condition. A personalised asthma action plan (PAAP), also known as a written action plan, an individualised action plan, or a self-management action plan, contributes to this endeavour. A PAAP includes individualised self-management instructions devised collaboratively with the patient to help maintain asthma control and regain control in the event of an exacerbation. A PAAP includes baseline characteristics (such as lung function), maintenance medication and instructions on how to respond to increasing symptoms and when to seek medical help.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of PAAPs used alone or in combination with education, for patient-reported outcomes, resource use and safety among adults with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials, clinical trial registers, reference lists of included studies and review articles, and relevant manufacturers' websites up to 14 September 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), both blinded and unblinded, that evaluated written PAAPs in adults with asthma. Included studies compared PAAP alone versus no PAAP, and/or PAAP plus education versus education alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. Primary outcomes were number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring an emergency department (ED) visit or hospitalisation, asthma symptom scores on a validated scale and adverse events (all causes). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measured on a validated scale, number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring systemic corticosteroids, respiratory function and days lost from work or study. We used a random-effects model for all analyses and standard Cochrane methods throughout.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 studies described in 27 articles that met our inclusion criteria. These 15 included studies randomised a total of 3062 participants (PAAP vs no PAAP: 2602 participants; PAAP plus education vs education alone: 460 participants). Ten studies (eight PAAP vs no PAAP; two PAAP plus education vs education alone) provided outcome data that contributed to quantitative analyses. The overall quality of evidence was rated as low or very low.Fourteen studies lasted six months or longer, and the remaining study lasted for 14 weeks. When reported, mean age ranged from 22 to 49 years and asthma severity ranged from mild to severe/high risk. PAAP alone compared with no PAAPResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.24; 1385 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (mean difference (MD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.25 to - 0.07; 141 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) or the number of serious adverse events, including death (OR 3.26, 95% CI 0.33 to 32.21; 125 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Data revealed a statistically significant improvement in quality of life scores for those receiving PAAP compared with no PAAP (MD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.30; 441 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence), but this was below the threshold for a minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Results also showed no clear benefit or harm associated with PAAPs on the number of participants reporting at least one exacerbation requiring oral corticosteroids (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.48; 1136 participants; three studies; very low-quality evidence) nor on respiratory function (change from baseline forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1): MD -0.04 L, 95% CI -0.25L to 0.17 L; 392 participants; three studies; low-quality evidence). In one study, PAAPs were associated with significantly fewer days lost from work or study (MD -6.20, 95% CI -7.32 to - 5.08; 74 participants; low-quality evidence). PAAP plus education compared with education aloneResults showed no clear benefit or harm associated with adding a PAAP to education in terms of the number of participants requiring an ED visit or hospitalisation for an exacerbation (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.32; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), change from baseline in asthma symptoms (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.34; 70 participants; one study; low-quality evidence), change in quality of life scores from baseline (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.39; 174 participants; one study; low-quality evidence) and number of participants requiring oral corticosteroids for an exacerbation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.12; 70 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported serious adverse events, respiratory function or days lost from work or study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of available studies was limited by variable reporting of primary and secondary outcomes; therefore, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions related to the effectiveness of PAAPs in the management of adult asthma. We found no evidence from randomised controlled trials of additional benefit or harm associated with use of PAAP versus no PAAP, or PAAP plus education versus education alone, but we considered the quality of the evidence to be low or very low, meaning that we cannot be confident in the magnitude or direction of reported treatment effects. In the context of this caveat, we found no observable effect on the primary outcomes of hospital attendance with an asthma exacerbation, asthma symptom scores or adverse events. We recommend further research with a particular focus on key patient-relevant outcomes, including exacerbation frequency and quality of life, in a broad spectrum of adults, including those over 60 years of age.