SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma.

Kew, KM; Carr, R; Crossingham, I (2017) Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 4. CD012331. ISSN 1469-493X https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2
SGUL Authors: Kew, Kayleigh Marie

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License ["licenses_description_publisher" not defined].

Download (593kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adolescents with asthma are at high risk of poor adherence with treatment. This may be compounded by activities that worsen asthma, in particular smoking. Additional support above and beyond routine care has the potential to encourage good self-management. We wanted to find out whether sessions led by their peers or by lay leaders help to reduce these risks and improve asthma outcomes among adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains reports of randomised trials obtained from multiple electronic and handsearched sources, and we searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 25 November 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies randomised adolescents with asthma to an intervention led by lay people or peers or to a control. We included parallel randomised controlled trials with individual or cluster designs. We included studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the searches, extracted numerical data and study characteristics and assessed each included study for risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life and exacerbations requiring at least a course of oral steroids. We graded the analyses and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences, all with a random-effects model. We assessed clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity when performing meta-analyses, and we described skewed data narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies including a total of 1146 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. As ever with systematic reviews of complex interventions, studies varied by design (cluster and individually randomised), duration (2.5 to 9 months), setting (school, day camp, primary care) and intervention content. Most risk of bias concerns were related to blinding and incomplete reporting, which limited the meta-analyses that could be performed. Studies generally controlled well for selection and attrition biases.All participants were between 11 and 17 years of age. Asthma diagnosis and severity varied, as did smoking prevalence. Three studies used the Triple A programme; one of these studies tested the addition of a smoke-free pledge; another delivered peer support group sessions and mp3 messaging to encourage adherence; and the third compared a peer-led asthma day camp with an equivalent camp led by healthcare practitioners.We had low confidence in all findings owing to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. Results from an analysis of asthma-related quality of life based on the prespecified random-effects model were imprecise and showed no differences (MD 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.81); a sensitivity analysis based on a fixed-effect model and a responder analysis suggested small benefit may be derived for this outcome. Most other results were summarised narratively and did not show an important benefit of the intervention; studies provided no analysable data on asthma exacerbations or unscheduled visits (data were skewed), and one study measuring adherence reported a drop in both groups. Effects on asthma control favoured the intervention but findings were not statistically significant. Results from two studies with high levels of baseline smoking showed some promise for self-efficacy to stop smoking, but overall nicotine dependence and smoking-related knowledge were not significantly better in the intervention group. Investigators did not report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although weak evidence suggests that lay-led and peer support interventions could lead to a small improvement in asthma-related quality of life for adolescents, benefits for asthma control, exacerbations and medication adherence remain unproven. Current evidence is insufficient to reveal whether routine use of lay-led or peer support programmes is beneficial for adolescents receiving asthma care.Ongoing and future research may help to identify target populations for lay-led and peer support interventions, along with attributes that constitute a successful programme.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review. Kew KM, Carr R, Crossingham I. Lay-led and peer support interventions for adolescents with asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD012331. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2.
Keywords: General & Internal Medicine, 11 Medical And Health Sciences
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Institute of Medical & Biomedical Education (IMBE)
Journal or Publication Title: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
ISSN: 1469-493X
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
19 April 2017Published
12 April 2017Accepted
Publisher License: Publisher's own licence
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
13/89/14National Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
PubMed ID: 28421600
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: http://sgultest.da.ulcc.ac.uk/id/eprint/108822
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012331.pub2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item