Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Ensayo clinico aleatorio para evaluar la eficacia de una intervencion educativa desarrollada en atencion primaria sobre asmaticos adultos (A randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention developed for adult asthmatics in a primary care centre) [Spanish; with consumer summary]
Cano Fuentes G, Dastis Bendala C, Morales Barroso I, Manzanares Torne ML, Fernandez Gregorio A, Martin Romana L
Atencion Primaria 2014 Mar;46(3):117-139
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of an educational intervention on asthma control and quality of life. DESIGN: A randomised clinical trial of patients with asthma, with an intervention group (IG) and a control (GC). Asthma control and quality of life was measured in both groups at baseline and every three months for one a year. Blinding was only possible in the collection and analysis of data. LOCATION: Two urban primary care health centres. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 163 patients aged 18 to 55 years were included: 84 were assigned to the IG and 79 to the CG. The follow-up was completed by 104 patients (GI 55 and GC 49). INTERVENTION GI: Three educational sessions in small interactive groups. The first session was at the beginning of spring, the second 15 days later, and the third 6 months later, to recall the knowledge. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Asthma control level and quality of life using ACT(Asthma Control Test) and the AQLQ (Asthma Quality of life Questionnaire). RESULTS: In the third month, statistically significant differences were detected in the percentage of patients with good control ((p = 0.0002), 75% in the GI, and 48.5% in the GC, relative risk (RR) 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1), number needed to treat (NNT) 3.8 (2.4 to 9.4), and an improvement in levels of quality of life from baseline (p = 0.005), RR 2.3 (1.3 to 4.1), NNT 4.3 (2.6 to 12.4). No differences were detected in the remaining sessions. CONCLUSIONS: These interventions are effective in improving the control and quality of life in short-term, which can guide us in choosing the best time to do it.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help