Cited by 25Asthma and respiratory diseasesChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchMindfulness and Compassion Interventions

Nonpharmacological interventions aimed at modifying health and behavioural outcomes for adults with asthma: a critical review

Yorke, J., Fleming, S., Shuldham, C., Rao, H., Smith, H.E.·2015·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract

Summary: Evidence suggests that living with asthma is linked with psychological and behavioural factors including self‐management and treatment adherence, and therefore, there is a reasonable hypothesis that nonpharmacological treatments may improve health outcomes in people living with this condition. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nonpharmacological interventions for adults with asthma was designed. Databases searched included The Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials, CENTRAL and Psychinfo. The literature search was conducted until May 2014. Twenty‐three studies met the inclusion criteria and were organized into four groups: relaxation‐based therapies (n = 9); mindfulness (n = 1), biofeedback techniques (n = 3); cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT) (n = 5); and multicomponent interventions (n = 5). A variety of outcome measures were used, even when trials belonged to the same grouping, which limited the ability to conduct meaningful meta‐analyses. Deficiencies in the current evidence base, notably trial heterogeneity, means that application to clinical practice is limited and clear guidelines regarding the use of nonpharmacological therapies in asthma is limited. Relaxation and CBT, however, appear to have a consistent positive effect on asthma‐related quality of life and some psychological outcomes, and lung function (relaxation only). Future trials should be informed by previous work to harmonize the interventions under study and outcome measures used to determine their effectiveness; only then will meaningful meta‐analyses inform clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cea.12511

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yorke, J., Fleming, S., Shuldham, C., Rao, H., & Smith, H. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Brighton (GB)
Corresponding author
Yorke, J.
Venue
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-11-19
Volume
45
Issue
12
Pages
1750-1764
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2022687422
Cited by
25
References
48
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical & Experimental Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Keywords
asthma, non-pharmacological treatment, relaxation training, mindfulness, biofeedback, cognitive behavioral therapy, multicomponent intervention, asthma self-management, medication adherence, asthma quality of life, psychological outcomes, lung function, adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Asthma, Behavior Therapy, Humans, Health Behavior, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Disease Management

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