Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Options for self-management education for adults with asthma

Open access
Powell, Heather, Gibson, Peter G·2002·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Asthma education and self-management are key recommendations of asthma management guidelines because they improve health outcomes. There are several different modalities for the delivery of asthma self-management education. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated programmes that: 1) Optimised asthma control through inhaled corticosteroid use by regular medical review or optimised asthma control by individualised written action plans 2) Used written self-management plans based on peak expiratory flow self-monitoring compared with symptom self-monitoring 3) Compared different options for the delivery of optimal self-management programmes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of asthma self-management education interventions in adults over 16 years of age with asthma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Fifteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted for confirmation. MAIN RESULTS: 1) Six studies compared optimal self-management allowing self-adjustment of medications according to an individualised written action plan to adjustment of medications by a doctor. These two styles of asthma management gave equivalent effects for hospitalisation, ER visits, unscheduled doctor visits and nocturnal asthma. 2) Self-management using a written action plan based on PEF was found to be equivalent to self-management using a symptoms based written action plan in the six studies which compared these interventions. 3) Three studies compared self-management options. In one, that provided optimal therapy but tested the omission of regular review, the latter was associated with more health centre visits and sickness days. In another, comparing high and low intensity education, the latter was associated with more unscheduled doctor visits. In a third, no difference in health care utilisation or lung function was reported between verbal instruction and written action plans. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Optimal self-management allowing for optimisation of asthma control by adjustment of medications may be conducted by either self-adjustment with the aid of a written action plan or by regular medical review. Individualised written action plans based on peak expiratory flow are equivalent to action plans based on symptoms. Reducing the intensity of self-management education or level of clinical review may reduce its effectiveness.

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 · 10.1002/14651858.cd004107

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 80 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Powell, H., & Gibson, P. G.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07-22
Volume
2010
Issue
1
Pages
CD004107-CD004107
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1520916973
Cited by
267
References
80
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Options for self-management education for adults with asthma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd004107
The paper
Powell, H., & Gibson, P. G. (2002). Options for self-management education for adults with asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004107

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.