Systematic Review of Digital Interventions for Pediatric Asthma Management
Open accessAbstract
Background Pediatric patients with asthma take only approximately half of their prescribed medication. Digital interventions to improve adherence for youth with asthma exist and have the potential to improve accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and customizability.Objective To systematically review published research examining digital interventions to promote adherence to the treatment of pediatric asthma.Methods A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and reference review databases was conducted. Articles were included if adherence was an outcome in a randomized controlled trial of a digital intervention for children with asthma. We compared samples, intervention characteristics, adherence measurement and outcomes, as well as additional health outcomes across studies.Results Of the 264 articles reviewed, 15 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, 87% of the digital interventions demonstrated improved adherence and 53% demonstrated improved health outcomes. All the promising interventions included a behavioral component and most were 3 to 6 months in length, delivered through a digital stand-alone medium (eg, automated personalized texts, mobile health apps, and website), and assessed adherence to controller medication.Conclusions Overall, digital interventions aimed at improving adherence are promising and also improve health outcomes in addition to medication adherence. Although future studies using evidence-based adherence assessment and multifactorial design should be conducted, the current literature suggests that both digital stand-alone interventions and interventions combining digital technology with support from a health care team member result in improved adherence and asthma outcomes. Recommendations for digital interventions for pediatric patients with asthma with adherence concerns are provided.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A systematic review of 15 different digital interventions for pediatric asthma management showed that 87% of the interventions improved medication and behavioral adherence.
“A systematic review of 15 different digital interventions for pediatric asthma management showed that 87% of the interventions improved medication and behavioral adherence, and 53% demonstrated improved health outcomes [113].”
A systematic review of 15 different digital interventions for pediatric asthma management showed that 53% demonstrated improved health outcomes.
“A systematic review of 15 different digital interventions for pediatric asthma management showed that 87% of the interventions improved medication and behavioral adherence, and 53% demonstrated improved health outcomes [113].”
These mobile health apps have not included scalable text-based health care conversational agents to support communication with health care professionals.
“Although these mobile health apps offer a range of features (eg, automated personalized texts, interactive websites, and online modules) to inform patients about asthma, they have not included scalable text-based health care conversational agents to support communication with health care professionals.”
By applying a scalable conversational agent for asthma specifically, the MAX intervention can provide greater health care professional interaction at reduced cost.
“By applying a scalable conversational agent for asthma specifically, the MAX intervention can provide greater health care professional interaction at reduced cost, which has been a key concern in past asthma interventions [113].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 95
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [55]Hommel KA, Davis CM, Baldassano RN. Objective versus subjective assessment of oral medication adherence in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2009; 15(4): 589– 93. 18985746 PMC2663377
- Authors
- Ramsey, R. R., Plevinsky, J. M., Kollin, S. R., Gibler, R. C., Guilbert, T. W., & Hommel, K. A.
- Affiliations
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ramsey, Rachelle R.
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1284-1293
- ISSN
- 2213-2198 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7152564
- OpenAlex
- W2996314639
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11
- FWCI
- 2.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
- Keywords
- childhood asthma, digital interventions, medication adherence, controller medications, mobile health apps, text messaging, behavioral interventions, health outcomes, children
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Humans, Medication Adherence, Mobile Applications
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