2007-06-01
Health technology assessment of asthma disease management programs
Publication
Publication
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology , Volume 7 - Issue 3 p. 242- 248
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide a critical opinion on the extent to which asthma disease management programs currently improve the effectiveness and efficiency of care and directions for future policy and research. RECENT FINDINGS: The methodological quality of health technology assessment of asthma disease management programs remains moderate. Asthma disease management programs are predominantly educational and organizational in nature and focus either on children or on adults. Paediatric disease management programs make more effort to outreach into patients' living environments and show higher participation rates than those targeting adults. Reductions in asthma-related hospitalization, emergency department, and unplanned clinic visits range from 0 to 85%, 87% and 71%, respectively. Aspects of self-management and organization of care improved after the implementation of disease management programs. Almost no impact on asthma symptoms, lung function or the use of long-term control medication was found. SUMMARY: There is accumulating 'circumstantial' evidence that disease management programs reduce resource utilization. The analytical rigor and uniformity of health technology assessment of asthma disease management programs has improved, but the generalizability of results remains uncertain. Practical, multicentre, clinical trials including broad representative study samples should be performed in different settings to increase methodological quality and substantiate current findings.
Additional Metadata | |
---|---|
, , , , | |
doi.org/10.1097/ACI.0b013e3280b10d7c, hdl.handle.net/1765/36908 | |
Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology | |
Organisation | Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam |
Steuten, L., Lemmens, K., & Vrijhoef, B. (2007). Health technology assessment of asthma disease management programs. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Vol. 7, pp. 242–248). doi:10.1097/ACI.0b013e3280b10d7c |