4.5 Article

Scheduled asthma management in general practice generally improve asthma control in those who attend

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 635-641

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.01.005

关键词

Asthma; Disease control; Management

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Successful asthma management involves guideline-based treatment and regular follow-up. We aimed to study the level of disease control in asthmatic individuals managed by their GP and a dedicated nurse when using a systematic asthma consultation guide based on Global Initiative of Asthma guidelines (GINA guidelines). Methods: Patients aged 18-79 years with doctor-diagnosed asthma were included. When managing the patients, the clinics were instructed to follow a consultation guide based on the principles of the GINA guidelines. This included evaluation of symptoms, treatment, compliance, lung function, and a scheduled follow-up appointment based on the level of asthma control: Results: At the initial visit (baseline), 684 patients (36.8%) were classified as well-controlled, 740 (39.8%) as partly controlled and 434 (23.4%) as uncontrolled. 1784 patients had been offered a follow-up visit and 623 (35%) had attended. A response analysis was performed, and those participating were older (46 versus 45 years, p < 0.01), whereas other variables were similar. A higher level of asthma control was found at the follow-up visit compared to the baseline visit (uncontrolled asthma 29.7% and 16.5%, respectively, p < 0.001). At the time of the follow-up visit, changes in treatment strategies were found (p < 0.01), and furthermore, level of lung function improved at the follow-up visit. Conclusion: Although most asthmatic individuals received asthma treatment, a substantial number still were partly or poorly controlled. The overall asthma control improved significantly when a systematic asthma management approach was introduced and applied by dedicated health care staff. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据