Do written action plans improve patient outcomes in asthma? An evidence-based analysis
- OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend use of written action plans and peak flow monitoring as key components of asthma care. Our study assesses whether written action plans, with or without peak flow monitoring, have an independent effect on outcomes when used as a component of asthma self-management.
- STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review of published studies. Two independent reviewers followed a prospective protocol for study selection and data abstraction. Outcome data were synthesized qualitatively; they were not appropriate for quantitative meta-analysis. Our comprehensive literature search used MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and a hand search of recent bibliographies. The search was limited to full-length, peer-reviewed articles with abstracts in English. The studies were randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of an asthma self-management intervention with and without the use a written action plan. The primary outcomes of interest are utilization measures, such as hospitalizations and ER visits. Other outcomes of interest include measures of symptom control and lung function
- POPULATION: There were 1501 evaluable patients with asthma; 1410 adults and 91 children.
- OUTCOMES MEASURED: We measured the frequency of waiting and examination room companions, the reasons for accompaniment, the influence on the encounter, and the overall helpfulness of the companion as assessed by patients and companions. We also determined the physician’s assessment of the companion’s influence, helpfulness, and behavior during the encounter.
- RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1501 patients met selection criteria. The majority of comparisons in these studies do not demonstrate improved outcomes associated with a written action plan. There are notable methodologic limitations: studies reporting negative findings lack sufficient power, and studies reporting positive findings demonstrate systematic bias.
- CONCLUSIONS: Although written action plans are widely used, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether their use, with or without peak flow monitoring, improves outcomes.
Existing trials have tended to over-estimate the effects of action plan-based interventions, thus having invested resources for results inadequate for optimizing self-management strategies. Careful consideration needs to be taken in future trials to realistically estimate the expected impact of each intervention, and to specify the primary outcomes of interest and their baseline frequencies. Future trials should be large enough to detect a difference if one exists, or to confidently conclude that the intervention is ineffective.
Attention to these principles will help to advance our knowledge in this area most efficiently and to ultimately improve the quality of care for the entire population of patients with asthma.
· Acknowledgments ·
We acknowledge Kathleen Ziegler, Pharm.D, and Claudia Bonnell, RN, MSL, for their assistance in the research and preparation of this manuscript.
