Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Compliance With National Asthma Management Guidelines and Specialty Care: A Health Maintenance Organization Experience

Legorreta, Antonio P., Christian-Herman, Jennifer, O'Connor, Richard D., Hasan, Malik M., Evans, Reaburn, Leung, Kwan-Moon·1998·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To improve asthma disease management, the National Asthma Education Program (NAEP) Expert Panel published Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma in 1991. OBJECTIVES: To compare the current status of asthma disease management among patients in a large health maintenance organization with the NAEP guidelines and to identify the factors that may be associated with medical care (eg, emergency department visits and hospital admissions) and adherence to the guidelines. METHODS: Analyses of 1996 survey data from 5580 members with asthma (age range, 14 to 65 years) covered by a major health maintenance organization in California (Health Net). RESULTS: In general, adherence to NAEP guidelines was poor. Seventy-two percent of respondents with severe asthma reported having a steroid inhaler, and of those, only 54% used it daily. Only 26% of respondents reported having a peak flowmeter, and of those, only 16% used it daily. Age (older), duration of asthma (longer), increasing current severity of disease, and treatment by an asthma specialist correlated with daily use of inhaled steroids. Ethnicity (African American and Hispanic) correlated negatively with inhaled steroid use but positively with emergency department visits and hospital admissions for asthma. Increasing age and treatment by an asthma specialist were also identified as common factors significantly related to the daily use of a peak flowmeter and, interestingly, to overuse of beta2-agonist metered-dose inhalers. CONCLUSIONS: Although the NAEP guidelines were published 7 years ago, compliance with the guidelines was low. It was especially poor for use of preventive medication and routine peak-flow measurement. Furthermore, the results showed that asthma specialists provided more thorough care than did primary care physicians in treating patients with asthma. Combining the results of the regression analyses revealed that some of the variation in rates of emergency department visits and hospitalizations among some subpopulations can be explained by the underuse of preventive medication. This study serves the goal of documenting the quality of care and services currently provided to patients with asthma through a large health maintenance organization and provides baseline information that can be used to design and assess effective population-based asthma disease management intervention programs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.158.5.457

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Legorreta, A. P., Christian-Herman, J., O'Connor, R. D., Hasan, M. M., Evans, R., & Leung, K.-M.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
1998-03-09
Volume
158
Issue
5
Pages
457
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2072238470
Cited by
324
References
0
FWCI
17.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Compliance With National Asthma Management Guidelines and Specialty Care: A Health Maintenance Organization Experience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.158.5.457
The paper
Legorreta, A. P., Christian-Herman, J., O'Connor, R. D., Hasan, M. M., Evans, R., & Leung, K.-M. (1998). Compliance With National Asthma Management Guidelines and Specialty Care: A Health Maintenance Organization Experience. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.5.457

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.