BMJ 1994;308:564-567 (26 February)

Papers

Effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow in patients with asthma

N Drummond, M Abdalla, J A G Beattie, J K Buckingham, T Lindsay, L M Osman, S J Ross, A Roy-Chaudhury, I Russell, M Turner, J A R Friend, J S Legge, J G Douglas,  for the Grampian Asthma Study of Integrated Care (GRASSIC)

Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB9 2ZD Thoracic Medicine Unit, Aberdeen Royal Hospital, Trust, City Hospital, Aberdeen AB9 8AU Correspondence and requests for reprints to: Mr Drummond.

Abstract

Objective : To evaluate the effectiveness of routine self monitoring of peak flow for asthma outpatients.
Design : Pragmatic randomised trial.
Setting : Hospital outpatient clinics and general practices in north east Scotland.
Main outcome measures : Use of bronchodilators and inhaled and oral steroids; number of general practice consultations and hospital admissions for asthma; sleep disturbance and other restrictions on normal activity; psychological aspects of health including perceived control of asthma.
Results : After one year there were no significant differences between patients randomised between self monitoring of peak flow and conventional monitoring. However, those given a peak flow meter recorded an increase in general practice consultations that was nearly significant. Among patients whose asthma was judged on entry to be more severe, those allocated to self monitoring used more than twice as many oral steroids (2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 4.6). Patients who already possessed a peak flow meter at the start of the study recorded higher morbidity over the course of the year than those eligible for randomisation.
Conclusion : Prescribing peak flow meters and giving self management guidelines to all asthma patients is unlikely to improve mortality or morbidity.Patients whose asthma is severe may benefit from such an intervention.

Clinical implications

  • Clinical implications

  • Peak flow meters have become ubiquitous in the diagnosis and management of asthma in general practice

  • The effectiveness of peak flow meters as self monitoring devices remains in doubt

  • Patients randomised to receive a peak flow meter and self management guidelines experienced little clinical benefit over the course of one year

  • Peak flow meters as self monitoring devices should be targeted at patients whose asthma is more severe or difficult to treat

Introduction

In October 1990 mini peak flow meters were made available on prescription in the United Kingdom, in response to several years of campaigning by the medical profession and the National Asthma Campaign for the wider use of what was regarded as a crucial instrument in asthma control. The device has been thoroughly validated as an accurate measure of peak expiratory flow rate,1 which is highly correlated with other measures of pulmonary function.2 Predictive values for flow rate have been calculated.3 Furthermore, the device is inexpensive, simple to use, and easy for patients to understand.4 While spirometry remains the usual method of assessing pulmonary function in hospital practice, peak flow meters have become widely used in the management of patients by general practitioners.5 Many patients are being given peak flow meters to take home, or are acquiring them themselves, and the British Thoracic Society has recommended the use of home recordings for good asthma management.6

There have, however, been few controlled studies of the effectiveness of mini peak flow meters in self management of asthma. Beasley et al issued peak flow meters and self management guidelines to 36 patients and recorded significant improvements in objective and subjective measures of asthma severity over six months, but their study lacked a control group.7 Janson-Bjerklie and Schnell, in a controlled design, issued meters to 15 patients, who reported decreased use of prescribed bronchodilators over two to three months, but no difference in symptoms.8 Charlton et al compared peak flow and self management plans based on symptoms and found no significant difference between patients.9 They concluded that issuing patients with peak flow meters alone would not improve asthma control.

The Grampian asthma study of integrated care was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of self monitoring of peak flow, integrated care, and personalised, computer based education for asthma patients. This paper reports our evaluation of peak flow self monitoring. The evaluations of integrated care and enhanced education are reported separately.10,11

Method

The Grampian asthma study of integrated care was constructed as a 2x2x2 randomised trial1,2: patients were independently assigned at random between self monitoring and conventional monitoring of peak flow; between integrated and conventional care; and between enhanced education and conventional education. Patients who already owned a peak flow meter were excluded from randomisation for that dimension of the study but were considered for randomisation on the two remaining dimensions.

Patients who were over 16 years, had their diagnosis of asthma confirmed by a specialist, had pulmonary function reversibility of 20% on treatment, were attending outpatient chest clinics in Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, and Peterhead, and were not already inpossession of a peak flow meter were allocated at random to either self monitoring or conventional monitoring of peak flow. If allocated to self monitoring, they were shown how to use a mini-Wright peak flow meter and given a device to take home, along with self management guidelines to follow when they identified changes in peak flow. Each set of guidelines was tailored to the patient's history of asthma according to the clinical judgment of the recruiting physician. Typically, the guidelines included a level of peak flow rate below which the patient should start a course of oral steroids, and a level below which the patient should seek immediate medical assistance. Patients allocated to conventional monitoring were given no self management advice beyond that normally offered during an outpatient consultation. Each patient participated in the study for one year.

All patients were reviewed every three months, by their general practitioner or by a hospital doctor. Before each review, self monitoring patients were sent a peak flow diary card and asked to complete it over the week before visiting the doctor. At each scheduled consultation during the study year, the doctor was asked to record relevant information, including pulmonary function, number of prescriptions for asthma drugs, amount of sleep disturbance caused by asthma in the previous week, and extent of restricted activity in the previous month. Full details of the methods of randomisation, data collection, and statistical analysis are described elsewhere.10 When peak flow meters became available on prescription, all general practitioners in Grampian were reminded of the nature of the study in order to minimise contamination through patients randomised to receive conventional monitoring but later being prescribed a meter.

Results

A total of 801 patients gave informed consent and were randomised between the three innovations. A total of 232 patients were already in possession of a peak flow meter and were therefore ineligible forrandomisation for that dimension of the study. Nevertheless patients who took part in the randomised trial were similar on entry to those excluded for their pulmonary function, perceived anxiety, self efficacy, and asthma control scores. The exception concerned social and physical functioning: patients eligible for randomisation recorded a mean score on the living with asthma scale that was higher by 0.23 (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.35). Though small in clinical and social terms, this difference suggests that patients who participated in the trial had less severe asthma on entry to the study than those who already owned peak flow meters.

In all, 569 patients were randomised, 285 to self monitoring and 284 to conventional monitoring, thus providing 80% power of detecting at the 5% significance level a difference between peak flow monitoring and conventional monitoring equivalent to 23% of the standard deviation of the variable in question. The initial interviews confirmed that randomisation had been effective: table I shows patient characteristics at the beginning of the study. 


TABLE I - Characteristics of randomised patients at entry into study. Values
are means (95% confidence intervals) unless indicated otherwise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics                                               Peak flow meter (n>=254)   No peak flow meter (n>=251)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age (years)                                                     51.1 (49.2 to 53.0)         50.5 (48.4 to 52.6)
Forced expiratory volume in one second (as % of predicted)      77.3 (74.1 to 80.5)         78.1 (74.8 to 81.4)
Peak expiratory flow rate (1/min)                              344.5 (330 to 359)          341.6 (326 to 358)
Duration of asthma (years)*                                      8.9 (7.6 to 10.4)           9.5 (8.1 to 11.1)
No (%) men                                                     136 (47.7)                  114 (40.1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *Geometric means.

After 12 months pulmonary function did not differ significantly between the two randomised groups, as assessed by forced expiratory volume in one second (as percentage of predicted) and by peak expiratory flow rate (table II). 


TABLE II - Pulmonary function after 12 months
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                          Difference between
                                                                                          Random groups                                                                 combined random groups
                                                                    -----------------------------------------------------------------                                        and previous
                                                                     Peak flow meter    No peak flow meter       Difference in mean        Previous peak flow meter      Peak flow meter group
Pulmonary outcome                                                        (n>=250)           (n>=260)         (95% confidence interval)           (n>=206)              (95% confidence interval)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean (SD) forced expiratory volume in one second (% of predicted)       74.6 (27.8)         75.4 (27.7)         -0.8 (-5.6 to 4.0)                72.3 (27.1)             2.7 (-1.8 to 7.2)
Mean (SD) peak expiratory flow rate (1/min)                              350 (120)           345 (130)             5 (-17 to 27)                   344 (117)              3.5 (-17 to 23)

Table III summarises the effect of self monitoring on the five clinical measurements, after the patient's initial peak flow, forced expiratory volume in one second (as percentage of predicted), and duration of asthma were controlled for. For use of bronchodilators, oral steroids, and inhaled steroids and the number of general practitioner consultations and hospital admissions during the year, the analysis showed no significant differences between the two randomised groups. However, the number of consultations for the self monitoring group approached statistical significance, with an estimated mean increase of 20% (0% to 45%). 


TABLE III - Clinical outcomes over 12 months. Values are means (95% confidence
intervals) unless stated otherwise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Random groups                                                                Ratio of combined
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------                                 random groups with
                                          Peak flow meter       No peak flow meter                           Previous peak flow meter      previous peak flow
Clinical outcome                             (>=230)                (n>=228)                 Ratio                  (n>=180)                  meter groups
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No of bronchodilators prescribed         10.1 (9.1 to 11.3)      9.0 (8.1 to 10.1)     1.12 (0.96 to 1.31)     12.8 (11.5 to 14.3)       0.75 (0.66 to 0.85)*
No of inhaled steroids prescribed         6.5 (6.0 to 7.1)       6.5 (6.0 to 7.1)      1.00 (0.88 to 1.12)      6.4 (5.8 to 7.0)         1.02 (0.92 to 1.15)
No of courses of oral steroids used       1.4 (1.2 to 1.7)       1.4 (1.2 to 1.6)      1.03 (0.82 to 1.30)      2.5 (2.1 to 2.8)         0.57 (0.48 to 0.69)*
No of GP consultations for asthma         2.6 (2.3 to 3.0)       2.2 (1.9 to 2.5)      1.20 (1.00 to 1.45)      3.4 (3.0 to 3.8)         0.71 (0.60 to 0.83)*
No of hospital admissions                 0.13 (0.09 to 0.18)    0.12 (0.08 to 0.17)   1.10 (0.69 to 1.73)      0.29 (0.23 to 0.37)      0.43 (0.31 to 0.59)*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Means and 95% confidence intervals are estimated from Poisson regression
models after controlling for initial peak flow, forced expiratory volume in
one second (as% of predicted), and duration of asthma.
 *P<0.05.

Within the randomised groups, 47% of the patients (226/485) never reported sleep disturbance (48% (114/239) in the peak flow meter group and 46% (112/246) in the control group) and 6% (29/485) reported that their sleep was disturbed every nightb (14/239 in the peak flow meter group and 15/246 in the control group). Analysis confirmed that type of monitoring was not significantly associated with this distribution of sleep disturbance. Table IV shows the mean number of disturbed nights in a week for those patients who sometimes reported sleep disturbance. No significant differences were found between the two randomised groups. Similarly 73% of patients (334/455) reported no restriction of activity resulting from asthma (76% (166/220) in the peak flow meter group and 72% (168/235) in the control group). This distribution was not significantly associated with randomisation to self monitoring or not. For those patients reporting some restriction of activity, the mean number of restricted days in a month is shown in table IV. No significant differences were found between the two randomised groups. 


TABLE IV - Symptoms after 12 months for patients who showed variation in
symptoms. Values are means (95% confidence intervals) unless stated otherwise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Random groups                                                             Ratio of combined
                                       ----------------------------------------------------------------                              random groups with
                                           Peak flow meter    No peak flow meter                          Previous peak flow meter    previous peak flow
Symptoms                                        (>=54)             (n>=67)                Ratio                  (n>=69)                 mter group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No of disturbed nights/week                2.3 (2.0 to 2.7)     2.6 (2.2 to 2.9)    0.90 (0.74 to 1.11)      2.9 (2.6 to 3.3)       0.84 (0.72 to 0.99)*
No of days of restricted activity/month    4.6 (3.1 to 7.0)     5.3 (3.8 to 7.4)    0.88 (0.54 to 1.41)      7.4 (5.7 to 8.7)       0.70 (0.48 to 1.01)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Means and 95% confidence intervals are estimated from Normal regression models
after controlling for initial peak flow, forced expiratory volume in one
second (as % of predicted), and duration of asthma.
 *P<0.05.

After 12 months, 538 (94%) of those randomised and 219 (94%) of those who already had a peak flow meter were interviewed in their homes. Response rate was similar in the two randomised groups. There were no significant differences between patients in the two randomised groups for any of the psychological outcomes (table IV). A comparison of the group who already owned a peak flow meter and the randomised groups of patients is also given in tables II-V. The results confirm that those patients who already owned a peak flow meter at the start of the study suffered from more severe asthma. 


TABLE V - Psychological outcomes at final interview. Values are means (95%
confidence intervals) unless stated otherwise
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Difference between
                                            Random groups                                                                      combined random
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------                               groups and previous
                               Peak flow meter     No peak flow meter                            Previous peak flow meter         peak flow
Psychological outcome               (>=268)             (n>=270)               Difference               (n>=218)                 meter group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anxiety                        6.4 (5.9 to 6.9)     6.4 (6.0 to 6.9)     -0.07 (-0.76 to 0.62)       7.3 (6.7 to 7.9)        -0.90 (-1.52 to -0.3)*
Living with asthma scale       2.8 (2.7 to 2.9)     2.8 (2.7 to 2.9)      0.00 (-0.12 to 0.12)       2.6 (2.5 to 2.7)         0.20 (0.10 to 0.30)*
Self efficacy scale            3.0 (2.9 to 3.1)     3.0 (2.9 to 3.1)      0.02 (-0.06 to 0.10)       2.9 (2.8 to 3.0)         0.05 (-0.02 to 0.12)
Depression(dagger)             3.7 (3.3 to 4.1)     4.0 (3.6 to 4.4)      0.92 (0.81 to 1.06)        4.4 (3.8 to 5.3)         0.88 (0.78 to 1.04)
No (%) controlling asthma          174 (65)             172 (64)             1 (-7 to 10)              124 (57)               0.75 (0 to 15)
  "all the time"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *P<0.05.
 (dagger)As the distribution of depression scores was not normally
distributed, these scores had to be log transformed; hence the reported means
are geometric means; 95% confidence interval for difference is for the ratio
of the two means.

Interaction between type of monitoring, integrated care, and enhanced education

Tests of interaction between the type of monitoring and any combination of the other two innovations (including patients whose asthma was too severe for them to be randomised to integrated care) were carried out. Table VI summarises only those variables for which type of monitoring had a significant interaction effect. After 12 months in the study, the subgroup of patients with asthma judged "too severe" and maintained in conventional care showed a significantly higher use of oral steroids if they had a peak flow meter (ratio of the means 2.22 (1.08 to 4.59)). Integrated care patients who reported variation in their limited activity had a significantly lower mean number of days of limited activity if they had a peak flow meter (ratio of the means 0.41 (0.22 to 0.75). 


TABLE VI - Variables for which type of monitoring had significant effect in
specific subgroups of patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Estimate (95% confidence interval)                  Ratio
                                       ------------------------------------------------           (95%
Outcome                                     Peak flow meter     No peak flow meter          confidence interval)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral steroid prescriptions*
Severe asthma patients                    3.38 (2.23 to 5.12)   1.52 (0.84 to 2.76)      2.22 (1.08 to 4.59)(double dagger)
Restricted activity(dagger):
Patients randomised to integrated care    3.55 (2.08 to 6.07)   8.65 (6.31 to 11.84)     0.41 (0.22 to 0.75)(double dagger)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *Means estimated from Poisson regression models after controlling for initial
peak flow, forced expiratory volume in one second (as % of predicted),
duration of asthma, and patients who already possessed a peak flow meter.
 (dagger)Means for patients who showed variation in their restricted
activity/month, estimated from Normal regression models after controlling for
initial peak flow, forced expiratory volume in one second (as % of predicted),
duration of asthma, and patients who already possessed a peak flow meter.
 (double dagger)P<0.05.

Discussion

This study evaluated the effectiveness of miniature peak flow meters for hospital outpatients in a large randomised trial over 12 months. The results are therefore relevant to the debate about the circumstances under which meters should be prescribed to patients diagnosed as having asthma.

We found no differences in the pulmonary function of patients after 12 months. However, those patients ineligible for the randomised trial because they already owned peak flow meters required much more medical intervention during the year to maintain their pulmonary function, implying that their asthma was either more severe or more difficult to treat than those eligible for randomisation. These patients may benefit considerably from owning a meter, but this hypothesis remains untested in a prospective, controlled trial. Our findings relating specifically to patients eligible for randomisation suggest that peak flow meters, even when accompanied by guidelines for self management neither reduce morbidity nor improve anxiety, depression, self efficacy, or social and physical functioning. However, our findings do suggest that possessing a meter leads to some improvement in management for the more serious patients, in the form of increased use of oral steroids. Although only marginally significant, the tendency towards more general practice consultations among those in possession of a meter could also be important. Evidence suggests that many avoidable deaths from asthma are caused by delay in seeking medical help.22 Avery et al found that 68% of asthmatic patients were not seeing a doctor regularly.23 Guidelines that advise patients to seek medical help at a specified peak flow rate relieve them of a difficult decision and may result in earlier treatment of an acute episode. However, this study showed no difference in the hospital admission rate between those randomised to receive a peak flow meter and those who did not receive a meter.

These results contrast with those achieved by Charlton and colleagues, who reported reductions in general practitioner consultations and in oral steroid consumption for all patients, irrespective of the nature of their management plan.9 Theirs was a sample of patients derived from a single general practice rather than an outpatient clinic, however, and all patients in their study were subject to review by an asthma nurse at least once every eight weeks. Such intensive review may not be acceptable to patients over an extended period of time and is not feasible for many general practitioners.

Without objective evidence in the form of reductions in hospital admissions or improvements in pulmonary function, the benefits of a peak flow self management plan are questionable. In particular, it is not clear whether more or fewer consultations should be seen as beneficial. Charlton et al considered the reduction in consultations that they reported as evidence of better health,9 but we judge that the increase in general practice consultations among our patients represents better monitoring by health professionals.

This study reinforces the mounting evidence that self monitoring of peak flow does not improve morbidity. No study has been able to repeat the improvements reported by Beasley et al, who reviewed their sample of patients three times over two months and again after six months.7 This close monitoring of patients in hospital clinics may have substantially improved patient compliance with treatment. Our study showed only marginal improvements for patients given a peak flow meter and management guidelines and then followed up quarterly over a year. Perhaps disappointingly, our analysis of interaction showed that this remained true for patients if they were, in addition, receiving educational materials. The suspicion remains, however, that those patients most likely to benefit from owning a peak flow meter because their asthma was more severe or unstable were ineligible for our study because they already owned one.

We therefore conclude that issuing peak flow meters and self management guidelines to all asthma outpatients is unlikely to result in general improvements in morbidity. However, self monitoring may facilitate monitoring by general practitioners and encourage consumption of oral steroids by those whose asthma is more severe or unpredictable. We suggest that peak flow meters be targeted at these patients.

We thank all the patients and general practitioners who contributed to this study. We are indebted to Drs Aileen Flett, Geoffrey Packe, and Stephen Watt for clinical support; to Annette Kinsella, John Lemon, Simon Naji, and Jim Petrie for methodological support; and to Jennifer Birdsall, Alison Ewen, Jackie Fiddes, and Rae Glass for secretarial support. The study was funded by a project grant from the Medical Research Council; the core of the Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Home and Health Department; neither of the funding bodies is responsible for the opinions expressed in this paper.

  1. Perks WH, Tams IP, Thompson DA, Prowse D. An evaluation of the mini-Wright peak flow meter. Thorax 1979;34:79-81. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Connolly CK, Chan NS. Relationship between different measurements of respiratory function in asthma. Respiration 1987;52:22-33. [Medline]
  3. Nunn AJ, Gregg I. New regression equations for predicting peak expiratory flow in adults. BMJ 1989;298:1068-70.
  4. Charlton I, Charlton G. New perspectives in asthma self-management. The Practitioner 1990;234:30-2. [Medline]
  5. Jones K. Asthma care in general practice - time for revolution? Br J Gen Pract 1991;41:224-6.
  6. British Thoracic Society and others. Guidelines on the management of asthma. Thorax 1993;48(suppl):S1-24.
  7. Beasley R, Cushley M, Holgate ST. A self-management plan in the treatment of adult asthma. Thorax 1989;44:200-4. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Jansson-Bjerklie S, Schnell S. Effect of peak flow information on patterns of self-care in adult asthma. Heart-Lung 1988;17:543-9. [Medline]
  9. Charlton I, Charlton G, Broomfield J, Mullee MA. Evaluation of peak flow and symptoms only self management plans for control of asthma in general practice. BMJ 1990;301:1355-9.
  10. GRASSIC. Integrated care for asthma: a clinical, social and economic evaluation. BMJ 1994;308:559-64. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Osman LM, Abdalla MI, Beattie JAG, Ross SJ, Russell IT, Friend JAR, et al. Reducing hospital admissions through computer supported education for asthma patients. BMJ 1994;308:568-71. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Pocock SJ. Clinical trials. New York: Wiley, 1983.
  13. Tobin DL, Wigal JK, Winder JA, Holroyd KA, Creer TL. The "asthma self-efficacy scale." Annals of Allergy 1987;59:273-7.
  14. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361-70. [Medline]
  15. Hyland ME. The living with asthma questionnaire. Respiratory Medicine 1991;85(suppl B):13-6.
  16. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1967;20:637-48. [Medline]
  17. Russell IT. The evaluation of computerised tomography: a review of research methods. In: Culyer AJ, Horisberger B, eds. Economic and medical evaluation of health care technologies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
  18. GLIM Working Party. The GLIM system release 3.77. 2nd ed. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group, 1987.
  19. Aitken M, Anderson D, Francis B, Hinde J. Statistical modelling in GLIM. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
  20. SIR Ltd. SIR version 3 environmental manual. Deerfield, Illinois: SIR, 1987.
  21. SPSS Inc. SPSS reference guide. Chicago: SPSS, 1990.
  22. British Thoracic Association. Death from asthma in two regions of England. BMJ 1982;ii:1251-5.
  23. Avery CH, March J, Brook RH. An assessment of the adequacy of self-care by adult asthmatics. J Community Health 1980;5:167-80. [Medline]
(Accepted 2 November 1993)


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Caring for patients with asthma Teaching self management takes time
I Charlton, G A Charlton, A Jones, N Drummond, M Abdalla, J Beattie, I Russell, J Friend, J Legge, and G Douglas
BMJ 1994 308: 1370-1. [Extract] [Full Text]

Caring for patients with asthma Guidance on routine self monitoring is not satisfactory
M Levy, J P Jamison, R K McKinley, O A Ahmed, B W Lloyd, I Gregg, C Butler, C Wilkinson, and J Marsh
BMJ 1994 308: 1099-1100. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Brouwer, A. F. J., Roorda, R. J., Brand, P. L. P. (2006). Home spirometry and asthma severity in children. Eur Respir J 28: 1131-1137 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Buist, A. S., Vollmer, W. M., Wilson, S. R., Frazier, E. A., Hayward, A. D. (2006). A Randomized Clinical Trial of Peak Flow versus Symptom Monitoring in Older Adults with Asthma. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 174: 1077-1087 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Wensley, D., Silverman, M. (2004). Peak Flow Monitoring for Guided Self-management in Childhood Asthma: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 170: 606-612 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Vincze, G., Parthan, A. (2004). The Value of Home Monitoring Kits in Diabetes, Hypertension, Asthma, and Oral Anticoagulation Therapy. Journal of Pharmacy Practice 17: 182-196 [Abstract]  
  • Anarella, J., Roohan, P., Balistreri, E., Gesten, F. (2004). A Survey of Medicaid Recipients With Asthma: Perceptions of Self-Management, Access, and Care. Chest 125: 1359-1367 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Gibson, P G, Powell, H (2004). Written action plans for asthma: an evidence-based review of the key components. Thorax 59: 94-99 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Brand, P L P, Roorda, R J (2003). Usefulness of monitoring lung function in asthma. Arch. Dis. Child. 88: 1021-1025 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Ren, C. L. (2003). What Is the Best Way To Measure Lung Function?. Chest 123: 667-668 [Full text]  
  • Ignacio-Garcia, J-M., Pinto-Tenorio, M., Chocron-Giraldez, M.J., Cabello-Rueda, F., Lopez-Cozar Gil, A.I., Ignacio-Garcia, J-M., de Ramon-Garrido, E. (2002). Benefits at 3 yrs of an asthma education programme coupled with regular reinforcement. Eur Respir J 20: 1095-1101 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Peleg, R., Gehtman, P., Blancovich, I., Aburabia, R., Allush, R., Hazut, S., Shvartzman, P. (2002). Outcomes of an intervention programme for treatment of asthma in a primary care clinic for Bedouins in southern Israel. Fam Pract 19: 448-451 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Scarfone, R. J., Capraro, G. A., Zorc, J. J., Zhao, H. (2002). Demonstrated Use of Metered-Dose Inhalers and Peak Flow Meters by Children and Adolescents With Acute Asthma Exacerbations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 156: 378-383 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Klein, J.J., van der Palen, J., Uil, S.M., Zielhuis, G.A., Seydel, E.R., van Herwaarden, C.L.A. (2001). Benefit from the inclusion of self-treatment guidelines to a self-management programme for adults with asthma. Eur Respir J 17: 386-394 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Eid, N., Yandell, B., Howell, L., Eddy, M., Sheikh, S. (2000). Can Peak Expiratory Flow Predict Airflow Obstruction in Children With Asthma?. Pediatrics 105: 354-358 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • (1999). Asthma education and patient monitoring. CMAJ 161: s15-19 [Full text]  
  • Hackner, D., Tu, G., Weingarten, S., Mohsenifar, Z. (1999). Guidelines in Pulmonary Medicine: A 25-Year Profile. Chest 116: 1046-1062 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Sudre, P., Jacquemet, S., Uldry, C., Perneger, T. V (1999). Objectives, methods and content of patient education programmes for adults with asthma: systematic review of studies published between 1979 and 1998. Thorax 54: 681-687 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Thoonen, B., Jones, K., van Rooij, H., van den Hout, A., Smeele, I, Grol, R, van Schayck, C. (1999). Self-treatment of asthma: possibilities and perspectives from the practitioner's point of view. Fam Pract 16: 117-122 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Brand, P. L P, Duiverman, E. J, Waalkens, H. J, van Essen-Zandvliet, E. E M, Kerrebijn, K. F, the Dutch CNSLD Study Group, (1999). Peak flow variation in childhood asthma: correlation with symptoms, airways obstruction, and hyperresponsiveness during long term treatment with inhaled corticosteroids. Thorax 54: 103-107 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Meek, P. (1999). Dyspnea . Mechanisms, Assessment, and Management: A Consensus Statement. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 159: 321-340 [Full text]  
  • (1997). Peak flow meters and spirometers in general practice. DTB 35: 52-55 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • TURNER, M. O., TAYLOR, D., BENNETT, R., MARK FITZGERALD, J. (1997). A Randomized Trial Comparing Peak Expiratory Flow and Symptom Self-management Plans for Patients with Asthma Attending a Primary Care Clinic. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 157: 540-546 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Lahdensuo, A., Haahtela, T., Herrala, J., Kava, T., Kiviranta, K., Kuusisto, P., Peramaki, E., Poussa, T., Saarelainen, S., Svahn, T. (1996). Randomised comparison of guided self management and traditional treatment of asthma over one year. BMJ 312: 748-752 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • , (1996). North of England evidence based guidelines development project: summary version of evidence based guideline for the primary care management of asthma in adults. BMJ 312: 762-766 [Full text]  
  • Lakhani, M., Baker, R., Fraser, R. (1996). Systematic methods must be used to develop review criteria. BMJ 312: 185b-185 [Full text]  
  • van Schayck, C. P., van den Broek, P. J. J. A., den Otter, J. J., van Herwaarden, C. L. A., Molema, J., van Weel, C. (1995). Periodic Treatment Regimens With Inhaled Steroids in Asthma or Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Is It Possible?. JAMA 274: 161-164 [Abstract]  
  • Charlton, I, Charlton, G A, Jones, A, Drummond, N, Abdalla, M, Beattie, J, Russell, I, Friend, J, Legge, J, Douglas, G (1994). Caring for patients with asthma Teaching self management takes time. BMJ 308: 1370-1 [Full text]  
  • Levy, M, Jamison, J P, McKinley, R K, Ahmed, O A, Lloyd, B W, Gregg, I, Butler, C, Wilkinson, C, Marsh, J (1994). Caring for patients with asthma Guidance on routine self monitoring is not satisfactory. BMJ 308: 1099-1100 [Full text]  
  • (1994). DOES SELF-MONITORING HELP IN MANAGING ASTHMA?. JWatch General 1994: 5-5 [Full text]  
  • Partridge, M R (1994). Asthma: guided self management. BMJ 308: 547-548 [Full text]  
  • Drummond, N, Abdalla, M, Buckingham, J K, Beattie, J A G, Lindsay, T, Osman, L M, Ross, S J, Roy-Chaudhury, A, Russell, I, Turner, M, Douglass, J G, Legge, J S, Friend, J A R (1994). Integrated care for asthma: a clinical, social, and economic evaluation. BMJ 308: 559-564 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Osman, L M, Abdalla, M I, Beattie, J A G, Ross, S J, Russell, I T, Friend, J A, Legge, J S, Douglas, J G (1994). Reducing hospital admission through computer supported education for asthma patients. BMJ 308: 568-571 [Abstract] [Full text]  
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ