Efficacy of an Education Session by Pharmacists for Patients With Asthma: Protocol and Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease that requires indefinite long-term therapy. Many approaches have been developed to enable people with asthma to live as normally as possible. In medication therapy management, pharmacists could play important roles in supporting the everyday life of asthmatic patients, such as by providing education therapy management to ensure that patients achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes. A good collaboration between health care practitioners and patients will produce a better system in terms of therapeutic management, which will lead to health care cost savings related to emergency visits. Although the Government has made various efforts to manage asthma in Indonesia, without commitment and support from both patients and health care professionals, the expected outcomes cannot be achieved. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an educational intervention provided by pharmacists compared with that of usual care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial comparing usual care with an education session by pharmacists is underway. The intervention comprises a one-on-one education session of 60 minutes with a pharmacist comprising information regarding (1) asthma medication that has been used; (2) how to use asthma medication devices correctly; (3) asthma symptoms and how to prevent exacerbation of asthma; and (4) how to manage asthma triggers and environmental control measures. The primary outcome measure is change in asthma control, as measured using the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include changes in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score, lung function, asthma-related health visits, days off from work or study, and oral corticosteroid use. Research assistants who are masked to the group allocation will collect outcome data at the baseline and every month for a 3-month period. Informed consent will be sought at enrollment and intention-to-treat analysis will be performed. RESULTS: This study was funded in January 2017 and ethical approval was obtained in June 2017. The enrollment was started in August 2017, and about 72 participants have been enrolled. First results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2019. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-guided asthma education session compared with that of usual care in Indonesia. If it is proven effective, this intervention program could improve asthma self-management by patients, which may reduce risks of poorly controlled asthma. This intervention could also be implemented in addition to the current usual care for patients with asthma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20171219001; http://www.clinicaltrials.in.th/index.php? tp =regtrials&menu=trialsearch&smenu=fulltext&task=search&task2=view1&id=3068 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73Ci5eKtv). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/10210.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».