0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) A Randomized Trial Online Only FREE

Jill S. Halterman, MD, MPH1; Maria Fagnano, MPH1; Paul J. Tremblay, RN1; Susan G. Fisher, PhD2; Hongyue Wang, PhD3; Cynthia Rand, PhD4; Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH1; Arlene Butz, RN, ScD, CPNP5
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
2Department of Clinical Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
3Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
4Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
5Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(10):e141983. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1983.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  A disproportionate number of impoverished and minority children have asthma and receive suboptimal preventive care.

Objective  To evaluate whether the Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) intervention, administered in primary care offices, improves the delivery of preventive care and reduces morbidity for urban children with asthma.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Cluster randomized trial in which 12 urban primary care practices were matched based on size and type and randomly allocated to the PAIR-UP intervention or usual care (UC). We enrolled 638 children aged 2 to 12 years with persistent or poorly controlled asthma in the waiting room prior to a visit with a clinician for any reason from October 2009 to January 2013. Blinded interviewers called caregivers within 2 weeks to inquire about preventive measures taken at the visit and called them 2 and 6 months later to assess symptoms.

Interventions  Children enrolled at PAIR-UP practices received prompts for the caregiver and clinician at the time of the visit that outlined the child’s asthma severity or control as well as specific guideline-based recommendations to enhance preventive care. These practices also received educational resources and periodic feedback on their asthma care performance. The UC practices received copies of the asthma guidelines.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was symptom-free days (SFDs) per 2 weeks at the 2-month follow-up.

Results  We enrolled 638 children (participation rate of 80%; 36% were black, 36% were Hispanic, and 68% had Medicaid insurance). Groups were similar in demographic characteristics and asthma severity at baseline. At the index visit, more children in the PAIR-UP group received a preventive medication action (new medication, increased dose, recommendation to restart preventive medication) than in the UC group (58% vs 33%; odds ratio [OR] = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9). More children in the PAIR-UP group than in the UC group received an asthma action plan (61% vs 23%; OR = 8.3; 95% CI, 3.7 to 18.7), discussions regarding asthma (93% vs 78%; OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 2.8 to 7.2), and secondhand smoke counseling (80% vs 63%; OR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.5). At the 2-month follow-up, children in the PAIR-UP group had more SFDs per 2 weeks than those in the UC group (mean difference, 0.78 days; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.27). At 6 months, the improvement in SFDs was no longer statistically significant (mean difference, 0.56; 95% CI, −0.14 to 1.25).

Conclusions and Relevance  The PAIR-UP intervention improved the delivery of preventive asthma care and reduced asthma morbidity for high-risk urban children with persistent asthma at 2 months, but the improvement in SFDs was no longer significant at 6 months.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01105754

Figures in this Article

Much of the morbidity caused by childhood asthma could be prevented if the disease was managed according to established guidelines.1,2 Unfortunately, guideline-based care is not delivered consistently in the primary care office.36 Care is particularly suboptimal for poor urban children, who have the greatest morbidity from asthma.711 For example, clinicians frequently misclassify asthma severity, resulting in inadequate prescription of effective preventive medications.12 Action plans and asthma education are not delivered consistently.13,14 Even if preventive medications are prescribed, many children continue to have poor asthma control.9,15 Further, many parents underestimate their child’s asthma severity16 and do not notify physicians about frequent symptoms.17

This study builds on our experience with a prior study in 2 urban continuity clinics in which we found that prompting clinicians about asthma severity and care guidelines at the time of an office visit resulted in improved preventive care delivery to inner-city children.18 In the current study, we sought to establish whether these findings could be replicated with a larger sample of urban children from different practice types and whether the positive effects could be enhanced by more specific prompting directed toward both the clinician and caregiver and by providing practice-level supports and feedback. Further, we tested the impact of the intervention on clinical outcomes as well as preventive care delivery.

The Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) program was designed to improve preventive care for urban children with asthma by improving symptom awareness and promoting preventive care in the context of active discussions between clinicians and caregivers. It also was designed to ensure that clinicians have the information and resources needed to provide guideline-based care and to prevent missed opportunities by including children who present to the office for reasons unrelated to their asthma.

We hypothesized that children receiving the PAIR-UP intervention would experience less asthma-related morbidity (defined by symptom-free days [SFDs] at the 2-month follow-up) compared with children receiving usual care (UC). Our secondary hypothesis was that children in the PAIR-UP group would receive improved preventive asthma care (defined by guideline-based corrective actions taken at the index visit) compared with UC.

Setting and Participants

Enrollment occurred in 12 urban primary care practices in Rochester, New York, from October 2009 to January 2013. Caregivers of children aged 2 to 12 years with asthma documented in their medical record were approached in the waiting room prior to the child’s appointment with a clinician. Research assistants administered a structured screening tool to caregivers to assess eligibility. Children with persistent or poorly controlled asthma based on the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) guidelines were eligible. Eligible children were visiting a physician or nurse practitioner (staff and social work visits were ineligible) for any reason, including well-child care visits and illness visits. Children were excluded if they had another significant health issue that might interfere with the assessment of asthma, if the family had no access to a telephone for follow-ups, and if they were enrolled previously.

We obtained written informed consent from the primary caregiver and oral assent from children aged 7 years or older. Spanish-speaking research assistants were available; consents, surveys, and prompts were translated into Spanish and back translated to English. All caregivers received grocery store gift certificates after each survey. The University of Rochester Institutional Review Board and the Rochester General Health System Institutional Review Board approved the protocol.

Randomization and the PAIR-UP Intervention

We performed a cluster randomized trial with 12 urban primary care practices, including 6 pediatric practices, 4 family medicine practices, and 2 medicine-pediatric practices. Prior to the start of enrollment, each of the 12 practices were matched based on size, type, and demographic characteristics and were randomly allocated by an independent statistician to either PAIR-UP or UC. Based on our prior data,18,19 we planned to enroll 638 participants to have greater than 80% power for primary and secondary outcomes. Enrollment in each practice occurred throughout the study period, with monthly goals for matched practices to ensure even recruitment across seasons and practices.

PAIR-UP Intervention

The PAIR-UP intervention consisted of 3 key components. First, for each participant, we generated a prompt for the clinician at the time of the visit with information regarding the child’s symptom severity or level of control, preventive medication use, exposure to smoke, and specific tailored recommendations for guideline-based preventive care, a simplified prompt for the caregiver, and a blank asthma action plan for use at the visit. Second, practice-level supports including brief interactive seminars, resource guides, and access to free-of-charge asthma education programs were given to support guideline-based preventive care. Third, biannual practice-level feedback was given regarding performance on key outcomes.

Prompts

The prompts were generated using standardized forms on a tablet computer with specified algorithms to generate individualized reports based on the information provided by caregivers. For children with persistent asthma and no use of preventive medication, we recommended starting an inhaled corticosteroid. For children with poor asthma control despite use of preventive medications, we recommended that the clinician consider evaluation of adherence and inhaler technique, treatment of potential comorbidities, evaluation for triggers, and step up of medications (new preventive medication or dose increase). The prompt also included information regarding medication adherence (if applicable), the child’s exposure to smoke, and other environmental exposures. Lastly, the prompt included a recommendation for the clinician to inquire about caregiver concerns and establish treatment goals (eFigure 1 in the Supplement).

The caregiver prompt included specific preventive care issues to discuss with the clinician during the visit (ie, triggers, medication concerns) and outlined the family’s treatment goals (ie, be able to participate in activities) based on caregiver responses to the waiting room survey (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

Both prompts were printed on a portable color printer and given to the caregiver in the waiting room, along with a blank asthma action plan. The research associate instructed the caregiver to deliver the clinician prompt and the action plan to the clinician when the child was called back for the visit. Caregivers were specifically instructed to hand the prompt to the clinician in the examination room rather than to the nurse or aide who might be initiating the visit with the child. They also were asked to refer to their own prompt during the visit.

Practice-Level Supports

We provided support to practices to assist clinicians in implementing the approach outlined in the NHLBI guidelines and to help remove clinician-level barriers to guideline implementation.6,20 These supports, developed using principles of physician behavior change,21 included brief interactive seminars tailored to clinicians’ needs, a summary of the 2007 NHLBI asthma guidelines,1 information regarding free-of-charge asthma education programs, links to local asthma resources, and educational packets for use in patient care. The seminars, led by the principal investigator (J.S.H.) and study nurse (P.J.T.), occurred at the beginning of each intervention year.

Practice-Level Feedback

All PAIR-UP practices received biannual feedback regarding the proportion of patients receiving appropriate guideline-based preventive actions during the study period and the proportion of patients meeting goals of therapy (limited symptoms, no acute care visits or hospitalizations, no absenteeism). The information was shown graphically, with a display of all intervention practices (indicated by code) for comparison. Key components of guideline-based care were represented, with tips for the clinicians.

The UC practices received copies of the NHLBI guidelines but did not receive performance feedback. Families enrolled at UC sites completed baseline assessments in the waiting room prior to their visit but did not receive the prompting intervention. At the conclusion of the study, all 12 practices received $500 to thank them for participating.

Assessments
Assessment of Asthma Severity and Symptoms at Baseline

After informed consent was obtained, a brief baseline assessment was completed in the waiting room prior to the child’s visit. We assessed asthma severity using structured questions adapted from NHLBI guidelines. Caregivers reported the number of days their child experienced any cough, wheeze, shortness of breath, or chest tightness during the day, frequency of nighttime symptoms, activity limitation, and rescue medication use for symptom relief in the prior 4 weeks. The number of SFDs in the prior 14 days (defined as the number of days the child remained symptom free with no wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath within a 24-hour period) was also recorded. Caregivers were asked the number of asthma exacerbations that required use of oral prednisone in the past year. As required by the eligibility criteria, all children had persistent or poorly controlled symptoms.

Initial Outcome Assessment

Within 2 weeks following the health care visit, caregivers were contacted via telephone and study staff used a structured interview tool to inquire about specific preventive care actions the child received at the office visit. Caregivers were asked about any changes to their child’s asthma medications and treatment plan, including whether the clinician prescribed a new controller medication, stepped up the dose of a previously prescribed controller medication, or recommended restarting a previously prescribed medication that the family had discontinued (any affirmative response was defined as a preventive medication action). We asked caregivers whether the clinician specifically inquired about the frequency of the child’s daytime and nighttime symptoms, counseled on reducing exposure to triggers including smoke, and discussed proper medication use. We also inquired whether the clinician delivered an asthma action plan or recommended a specialist referral or follow-up asthma visit.

Using a structured medical record abstraction tool, we reviewed medical records to assess the same preventive measures based on clinician report. Any documentation of asthma care was recorded by a research assistant blinded to treatment group. We considered that a preventive action was taken during the visit if either the caregiver or medical record review indicated an action had occurred. Medical record review data agreed with caregiver report 78% of the time (κ = 0.52).

Assessment of Asthma Symptoms and Health Care Utilization at 2 and 6 Months

Caregivers were contacted by telephone 2 and 6 months after enrollment to assess asthma symptoms and health care utilization. At each follow-up, research assistants asked the number of days per 2 weeks the children experienced daytime symptoms, nighttime symptoms, activity limitation, and requiring rescue medication to relieve symptoms. Caregivers also reported acute visits to the clinician as well as emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to the child’s asthma since the index visit. The primary outcome was SFDs per 2 weeks at the 2-month follow-up. All follow-up telephone calls were administered by trained research assistants blinded to treatment group allocation.

Assessment of Covariates

We inquired about demographic characteristics, including child’s age, race (white, black, or other), ethnicity (Hispanic or not Hispanic), Medicaid insurance (yes or no), language spoken at home (English or Spanish), caregiver age (<30 or ≥30 years), caregiver education (<high school graduate or ≥high school graduate), caregiver marital status (married/domestic partner or single), and primary caregiver smoking status (yes or no). The reason for the health care visit was categorized as either asthma visit (acute and follow-up) or nonasthma visit (well-child care visit, nonasthma sick visit or follow-up, and other).

Statistical Analysis

We performed analyses using SAS version 9.3 statistical software (SAS Institute, Inc). Baseline characteristics were compared between groups using 2-sample t tests (continuous variables) or using χ2 or Fisher exact tests (categorical variables). Multiple regression models were fitted for SFDs (dependent variable) and study group (independent variable) after adjusting for baseline SFDs, sex, race, asthma severity, and language. We estimated regression coefficients and standard errors using generalized estimating equations to account for the clustering data structure within practices. We used the same approach for secondary outcomes and 6-month measures. Logit-link function and binomial errors were specified for binary outcomes (emergency department visits or hospitalizations). Analyses also adjusted for actual duration that events were observed. Missing data analysis evaluated whether missingness was associated with observed covariates and outcomes. If the missing-completely-at-random assumption was not satisfied, we used inverse probability–weighted generalized estimating equations.22,23

We assessed 1636 children for eligibility; 841 were ineligible, 143 refused, and 14 were not enrolled owing to lack of time in the waiting room (Figure). The remaining 638 children were enrolled, for a participation rate of 80%. Table 1 describes demographic characteristics for the children and caregivers as well as baseline asthma-related variables. The mean (SD) age of the children was 6.71 (3.0) years, and 58% were male. Among the participants, 36% were black, 36% were Hispanic, and 68% had Medicaid insurance. Most of the caregivers (75%) had at least graduated from high school, 32% smoked, and 27% spoke Spanish at home. Demographic characteristics were not different between treatment groups, with the exception that fewer Spanish-speaking caregivers had children in the PAIR-UP group than in the UC group (24% vs 31%, respectively).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) CONSORT Flow Diagram
Graphic Jump Location

Based on NHLBI classifications, 37% of caregivers reported that their child had mild persistent symptoms at the time of the visit, 34% had moderate persistent symptoms, and 28% had severe persistent symptoms. Caregivers reported a mean (SD) of 7.53 (4.9) SFDs over 2 weeks, 41% reported an emergency department visit for asthma in the prior year, and only 58% reported having a preventive asthma medication. Only 25% were being seen at the office for an asthma-related visit. There were no differences in baseline asthma severity, medication use, or reason for visit between the groups.

Table 2 indicates asthma care actions that occurred during the index visit. Overall, asthma care actions were low for this group of children with current persistent symptoms. Fewer than half of the children received a preventive medication action (new medication, increased dose, recommendation to restart preventive medication), an asthma action plan, or an assessment of asthma triggers. However, at the time of the health care visit, significantly more children in the PAIR-UP group than in the UC group received a preventive medication action (58% vs 33%, respectively; odds ratio [OR] = 2.8; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9). Further, more children in the PAIR-UP group than in the UC group received an asthma action plan (61% vs 23%, respectively; OR = 8.3; 95% CI, 3.7 to 18.7), discussions regarding their asthma (93% vs 78%, respectively; OR = 4.5; 95% CI, 2.8 to 7.2), and secondhand smoke counseling (80% vs 63%, respectively; OR = 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Asthma Care Actions During Index Visit

Parent-reported asthma symptoms and health care utilization at the 2- and 6-month follow-ups are shown in Table 3. For the primary outcome, we found that children in the PAIR-UP group had more SFDs per 2 weeks at 2 months than in the UC group (mean difference, 0.78 days; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.27). Children in the PAIR-UP group also had fewer days and fewer nights with asthma symptoms compared with those in the UC group. At 6 months, the improvement in SFDs was no longer significantly different from UC (mean difference, 0.56; 95% CI, −0.14 to 1.25), but children in the PAIR-UP group had significantly fewer nights with symptoms per 2 weeks (mean difference, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.77 to −0.09). Very few children had an emergency department visit or hospitalization for asthma within the 6-month period after enrollment, and this did not differ between the PAIR-UP and UC groups (11% vs 11%, respectively; OR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.87).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Caregiver-Reported Symptoms and Health Care Utilization at 2 and 6 Months

The PAIR-UP intervention, which included clinician prompting, practice-level supports, and performance feedback, significantly improved the delivery of preventive asthma care at the time of an office visit for high-risk urban children with persistent asthma. More children in PAIR-UP practices received a preventive medication action, an asthma action plan, and discussions regarding asthma and secondhand smoke than children in UC practices. We also demonstrated an improvement in asthma morbidity at the 2-month follow-up assessment. This suggests that the intervention improved not only the delivery of care but also short-term clinical outcomes.

Other studies have tested clinician prompts as a successful method to stimulate action regarding clinical issues and improve preventive care,4,2431 and some have also assessed patient prompting in addition to clinician prompting to optimize preventive treatment programs.32,33 Similarly, performance feedback on specific practices has been extensively used in health maintenance organizations for quality improvement3438; however, this is not standard practice in health care settings, and information rarely is relayed at the time of a patient visit. Multifaceted interventions such as PAIR-UP appear to yield the greatest success in improving asthma care.3945

The goal of PAIR-UP was to reduce asthma morbidity by implementing a conceptually simple system change in primary care practice. By prompting clinicians and caregivers at the time of the office visit and empowering them with immediate and relevant information and resources based on national guidelines, we facilitated the delivery of optimal care. We included a large sample of children from representative practices in an urban community who were in greatest need of assistance. We specifically chose a cluster randomized design with practice-level randomization to lessen the risk of experimental contamination that occurs with individual-level randomization, allow for incorporation of practice-level supports and feedback, and allow for synergy and diffusion within practices. To help ensure equivalent treatment groups, we incorporated a priori matching of practices based on key variables and accounted for intracluster correlation estimates in the analytic plan.

There are some potential limitations of this study. First, despite prompting, delivery of preventive care for these high-risk children remained suboptimal, likely owing to a variety of factors including the competing demands of an office visit. Second, our intervention required the financial commitment for staff members to perform symptom screening in the waiting room, and we used printed prompts rather than electronic medical record systems because many of the practices (approximately half) were still using paper records at the time of the study. However, many more practices are now equipped with electronic medical record systems and screening information could easily be entered by caregivers into tablet computers or waiting room kiosks and electronically translated to prompts in the electronic medical record system, requiring very little expense. Further, we did not incorporate formal asthma education or reinforcement after the index visit. Our goal was to develop a system that could be easily replicated, thus requiring the intervention to be simple and inexpensive. While the improvement in SFDs at 2 months is considered clinically meaningful,46,47 we suspect that not having program reinforcement over time may have contributed to our lack of a statistically significant difference in SFDs at 6 months.

It is important to note that the interview process with the families in the waiting room could have caused families in UC practices to focus on asthma more than they would have without the baseline interview process, thus triggering enhanced care. Additionally, outcome measures obtained by caregiver interview may be subject to recall errors or recall bias. To minimize this possibility, the recall period was short, the assessments were blinded, and we included medical record review data. Lastly, because the program was multifaceted by design, we cannot determine the effectiveness of individual components.

Asthma continues to disproportionately affect impoverished children and preventive care is suboptimal.710 Missed opportunities to provide optimal preventive asthma care in the primary care setting are common and likely contribute to preventable morbidity. We found that a multifaceted prompting intervention in the primary care office improved the delivery of preventive asthma care and reduced asthma morbidity for high-risk children with persistent asthma. This project has the potential to serve as a model for improved asthma care in urban communities.

Corresponding Author: Jill S. Halterman, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 777, Rochester, NY 14642 (jill_halterman@urmc.rochester.edu).

Accepted for Publication: August 4, 2014.

Published Online: October 6, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1983.

Author Contributions: Dr Halterman had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Halterman, Tremblay, Szilagyi, Butz.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Halterman, Fagnano, Tremblay, Fisher, Wang, Rand, Butz.

Drafting of the manuscript: Halterman, Fagnano, Wang, Butz.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Halterman, Fagnano, Tremblay, Fisher, Rand, Szilagyi.

Statistical analysis: Fisher, Wang.

Obtained funding: Halterman, Tremblay, Rand, Szilagyi, Butz.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Fagnano, Tremblay, Fisher.

Study supervision: Halterman, Fagnano, Tremblay, Butz.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant R01 HL091835 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Correction: This article was corrected on April 30, 2015, to fix an error in Table 2.

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.  Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: summary report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(5)(suppl):S94-S138.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report III: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute; 2007. NIH publication 07-4051.
Wisnivesky  JP, Lorenzo  J, Lyn-Cook  R,  et al.  Barriers to adherence to asthma management guidelines among inner-city primary care providers. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(3):264-270.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Okelo  SO, Butz  AM, Sharma  R,  et al.  Interventions to modify health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):517-534.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lee  GB, Le  TT.  Training pediatricians to adhere to asthma guidelines. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2013;26(3):110-114. doi:10.1089/ped.2013.0265.
Link to Article
Cabana  MD, Ebel  BE, Cooper-Patrick  L, Powe  NR, Rubin  HR, Rand  CS.  Barriers pediatricians face when using asthma practice guidelines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(7):685-693.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crocker  D, Brown  C, Moolenaar  R,  et al.  Racial and ethnic disparities in asthma medication usage and health-care utilization: data from the National Asthma Survey. Chest. 2009;136(4):1063-1071.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gupta  RS, Springston  EE, Weiss  KB.  Eliminating asthma disparities: is there evidence of progress? Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2009;15(1):72-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Auinger  P, Conn  KM, Lynch  K, Yoos  HL, Szilagyi  PG.  Inadequate therapy and poor symptom control among children with asthma: findings from a multistate sample. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7(2):153-159.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McDaniel  MK, Waldfogel  J.  Racial and ethnic differences in the management of childhood asthma in the United States. J Asthma. 2012;49(8):785-791.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Akinbami  LJ, Moorman  JE, Liu  X.  Asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality: United States, 2005-2009. Natl Health Stat Report. 2011;32(32):1-14.
PubMed
Halterman  JS, Yoos  HL, Kaczorowski  JM,  et al.  Providers underestimate symptom severity among urban children with asthma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(2):141-146.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yee  AB, Fagnano  M, Halterman  JS.  Preventive asthma care delivery in the primary care office: missed opportunities for children with persistent asthma symptoms. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(2):98-104.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fuhrman  C, Dubus  JC, Marguet  C,  et al.  Hospitalizations for asthma in children are linked to undertreatment and insufficient asthma education. J Asthma. 2011;48(6):565-571.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McGrady  ME, Hommel  KA.  Medication adherence and health care utilization in pediatric chronic illness: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):730-740.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shefer  G, Donchin  M, Manor  O,  et al.  Disparities in assessments of asthma control between children, parents, and physicians [published online October 25, 2013]. Pediatr Pulmonol. doi:10.1002/ppul.22924.
Halterman  JS, Yoos  HL, Sidora  K, Kitzman  H, McMullen  A.  Medication use and health care contacts among symptomatic children with asthma. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1(5):275-279.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Szilagyi  PG, Yoos  HL,  et al.  Benefits of a school-based asthma treatment program in the absence of secondhand smoke exposure: results of a randomized clinical trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(5):460-467.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Fisher  S, Conn  KM,  et al.  Improved preventive care for asthma: a randomized trial of clinician prompting in pediatric offices. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(10):1018-1025.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cabana  MD, Rand  CS, Powe  NR,  et al.  Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? a framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458-1465.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Soumerai  SB, Avorn  J.  Principles of educational outreach (“academic detailing”) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;263(4):549-556.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Molenberghs  G, Kenward  M. Missing Data in Clinical Studies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
Robins  JM, Rotnitzky  A, Zhao  LP.  Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(429):106-121.
Link to Article
Minkovitz  CS, Belote  AD, Higman  SM, Serwint  JR, Weiner  JP.  Effectiveness of a practice-based intervention to increase vaccination rates and reduce missed opportunities. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(3):382-386.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harris  RP, O’Malley  MS, Fletcher  SW, Knight  BP.  Prompting physicians for preventive procedures: a five-year study of manual and computer reminders. Am J Prev Med. 1990;6(3):145-152.
PubMed
Chang  HC, Zimmerman  LH, Beck  JM.  Impact of chart reminders on smoking cessation practices of pulmonary physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(3):984-987.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arditi  C, Rège-Walther  M, Wyatt  JC, Durieux  P, Burnand  B.  Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD001175.
PubMed
Shojania  KG, Jennings  A, Mayhew  A, Ramsay  CR, Eccles  MP, Grimshaw  J.  The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD001096.
PubMed
Baron  RC, Melillo  S, Rimer  BK,  et al; Task Force on Community Preventive Services.  Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1):110-117.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Linder  JA, Rigotti  NA, Schneider  LI, Kelley  JHK, Brawarsky  P, Haas  JS.  An electronic health record-based intervention to improve tobacco treatment in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(8):781-787.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cloutier  MM, Jones  GA, Hinckson  V, Wakefield  DB.  Effectiveness of an asthma management program in reducing disparities in care in urban children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(6):545-550.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Scott  IA, Denaro  CP, Bennett  CJ,  et al.  Achieving better in-hospital and after-hospital care of patients with acute cardiac disease. Med J Aust. 2004;180(10)(suppl):S83-S88.
PubMed
Marcus  AC, Crane  LA.  A review of cervical cancer screening intervention research: implications for public health programs and future research. Prev Med. 1998;27(1):13-31.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ivers  N, Jamtvedt  G, Flottorp  S,  et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
PubMed
Greco  PJ, Eisenberg  JM.  Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(17):1271-1273.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weingarten  SR, Henning  JM, Badamgarav  E,  et al.  Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness—which ones work? meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):925.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kattan  M, Crain  EF, Steinbach  S,  et al.  A randomized clinical trial of clinician feedback to improve quality of care for inner-city children with asthma. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1095-e1103.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Simpkins  J, Divine  G, Wang  M, Holmboe  E, Pladevall  M, Williams  LK.  Improving asthma care through recertification: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(20):2240-2248.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Evans  D, Mellins  R, Lobach  K,  et al.  Improving care for minority children with asthma: professional education in public health clinics. Pediatrics. 1997;99(2):157-164.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Evans  D, Sheares  BJ, Vazquez  TL.  Educating health professionals to improve quality of care for asthma. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2004;5(4):304-310.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cicutto  L, To  T, Murphy  S.  A randomized controlled trial of a public health nurse-delivered asthma program to elementary schools. J Sch Health. 2013;83(12):876-884.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Turyk  M, Banda  E, Chisum  G,  et al.  A multifaceted community-based asthma intervention in Chicago: effects of trigger reduction and self-management education on asthma morbidity. J Asthma. 2013;50(7):729-736.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Woods  ER, Bhaumik  U, Sommer  SJ,  et al.  Community asthma initiative: evaluation of a quality improvement program for comprehensive asthma care. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):465-472.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bunik  M, Federico  MJ, Beaty  B, Rannie  M, Olin  JT, Kempe  A.  Quality improvement for asthma care within a hospital-based teaching clinic. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(1):58-65.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fox  P, Porter  PG, Lob  SH, Boer  JH, Rocha  DA, Adelson  JW.  Improving asthma-related health outcomes among low-income, multiethnic, school-aged children: results of a demonstration project that combined continuous quality improvement and community health worker strategies. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):e902-e911.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Szefler  SJ.  Challenges in assessing outcomes for pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(5)(suppl):S456-S464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Szilagyi  PG, Fisher  SG,  et al.  Randomized controlled trial to improve care for urban children with asthma: results of the School-Based Asthma Therapy trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(3):262-268.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.
Prompting Asthma Intervention in Rochester–Uniting Parents and Providers (PAIR-UP) CONSORT Flow Diagram
Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Asthma Care Actions During Index Visit
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Caregiver-Reported Symptoms and Health Care Utilization at 2 and 6 Months

References

National Asthma Education and Prevention Program.  Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3): guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma: summary report 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120(5)(suppl):S94-S138.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report III: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute; 2007. NIH publication 07-4051.
Wisnivesky  JP, Lorenzo  J, Lyn-Cook  R,  et al.  Barriers to adherence to asthma management guidelines among inner-city primary care providers. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(3):264-270.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Okelo  SO, Butz  AM, Sharma  R,  et al.  Interventions to modify health care provider adherence to asthma guidelines: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):517-534.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lee  GB, Le  TT.  Training pediatricians to adhere to asthma guidelines. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol. 2013;26(3):110-114. doi:10.1089/ped.2013.0265.
Link to Article
Cabana  MD, Ebel  BE, Cooper-Patrick  L, Powe  NR, Rubin  HR, Rand  CS.  Barriers pediatricians face when using asthma practice guidelines. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(7):685-693.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Crocker  D, Brown  C, Moolenaar  R,  et al.  Racial and ethnic disparities in asthma medication usage and health-care utilization: data from the National Asthma Survey. Chest. 2009;136(4):1063-1071.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gupta  RS, Springston  EE, Weiss  KB.  Eliminating asthma disparities: is there evidence of progress? Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2009;15(1):72-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Auinger  P, Conn  KM, Lynch  K, Yoos  HL, Szilagyi  PG.  Inadequate therapy and poor symptom control among children with asthma: findings from a multistate sample. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7(2):153-159.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McDaniel  MK, Waldfogel  J.  Racial and ethnic differences in the management of childhood asthma in the United States. J Asthma. 2012;49(8):785-791.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Akinbami  LJ, Moorman  JE, Liu  X.  Asthma prevalence, health care use, and mortality: United States, 2005-2009. Natl Health Stat Report. 2011;32(32):1-14.
PubMed
Halterman  JS, Yoos  HL, Kaczorowski  JM,  et al.  Providers underestimate symptom severity among urban children with asthma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(2):141-146.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Yee  AB, Fagnano  M, Halterman  JS.  Preventive asthma care delivery in the primary care office: missed opportunities for children with persistent asthma symptoms. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(2):98-104.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fuhrman  C, Dubus  JC, Marguet  C,  et al.  Hospitalizations for asthma in children are linked to undertreatment and insufficient asthma education. J Asthma. 2011;48(6):565-571.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
McGrady  ME, Hommel  KA.  Medication adherence and health care utilization in pediatric chronic illness: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):730-740.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shefer  G, Donchin  M, Manor  O,  et al.  Disparities in assessments of asthma control between children, parents, and physicians [published online October 25, 2013]. Pediatr Pulmonol. doi:10.1002/ppul.22924.
Halterman  JS, Yoos  HL, Sidora  K, Kitzman  H, McMullen  A.  Medication use and health care contacts among symptomatic children with asthma. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1(5):275-279.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Szilagyi  PG, Yoos  HL,  et al.  Benefits of a school-based asthma treatment program in the absence of secondhand smoke exposure: results of a randomized clinical trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(5):460-467.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Fisher  S, Conn  KM,  et al.  Improved preventive care for asthma: a randomized trial of clinician prompting in pediatric offices. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(10):1018-1025.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cabana  MD, Rand  CS, Powe  NR,  et al.  Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? a framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999;282(15):1458-1465.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Soumerai  SB, Avorn  J.  Principles of educational outreach (“academic detailing”) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;263(4):549-556.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Molenberghs  G, Kenward  M. Missing Data in Clinical Studies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
Robins  JM, Rotnitzky  A, Zhao  LP.  Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90(429):106-121.
Link to Article
Minkovitz  CS, Belote  AD, Higman  SM, Serwint  JR, Weiner  JP.  Effectiveness of a practice-based intervention to increase vaccination rates and reduce missed opportunities. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(3):382-386.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harris  RP, O’Malley  MS, Fletcher  SW, Knight  BP.  Prompting physicians for preventive procedures: a five-year study of manual and computer reminders. Am J Prev Med. 1990;6(3):145-152.
PubMed
Chang  HC, Zimmerman  LH, Beck  JM.  Impact of chart reminders on smoking cessation practices of pulmonary physicians. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(3):984-987.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Arditi  C, Rège-Walther  M, Wyatt  JC, Durieux  P, Burnand  B.  Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD001175.
PubMed
Shojania  KG, Jennings  A, Mayhew  A, Ramsay  CR, Eccles  MP, Grimshaw  J.  The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD001096.
PubMed
Baron  RC, Melillo  S, Rimer  BK,  et al; Task Force on Community Preventive Services.  Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(1):110-117.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Linder  JA, Rigotti  NA, Schneider  LI, Kelley  JHK, Brawarsky  P, Haas  JS.  An electronic health record-based intervention to improve tobacco treatment in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(8):781-787.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cloutier  MM, Jones  GA, Hinckson  V, Wakefield  DB.  Effectiveness of an asthma management program in reducing disparities in care in urban children. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;100(6):545-550.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Scott  IA, Denaro  CP, Bennett  CJ,  et al.  Achieving better in-hospital and after-hospital care of patients with acute cardiac disease. Med J Aust. 2004;180(10)(suppl):S83-S88.
PubMed
Marcus  AC, Crane  LA.  A review of cervical cancer screening intervention research: implications for public health programs and future research. Prev Med. 1998;27(1):13-31.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ivers  N, Jamtvedt  G, Flottorp  S,  et al.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
PubMed
Greco  PJ, Eisenberg  JM.  Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(17):1271-1273.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weingarten  SR, Henning  JM, Badamgarav  E,  et al.  Interventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness—which ones work? meta-analysis of published reports. BMJ. 2002;325(7370):925.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kattan  M, Crain  EF, Steinbach  S,  et al.  A randomized clinical trial of clinician feedback to improve quality of care for inner-city children with asthma. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1095-e1103.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Simpkins  J, Divine  G, Wang  M, Holmboe  E, Pladevall  M, Williams  LK.  Improving asthma care through recertification: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(20):2240-2248.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Evans  D, Mellins  R, Lobach  K,  et al.  Improving care for minority children with asthma: professional education in public health clinics. Pediatrics. 1997;99(2):157-164.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Evans  D, Sheares  BJ, Vazquez  TL.  Educating health professionals to improve quality of care for asthma. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2004;5(4):304-310.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cicutto  L, To  T, Murphy  S.  A randomized controlled trial of a public health nurse-delivered asthma program to elementary schools. J Sch Health. 2013;83(12):876-884.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Turyk  M, Banda  E, Chisum  G,  et al.  A multifaceted community-based asthma intervention in Chicago: effects of trigger reduction and self-management education on asthma morbidity. J Asthma. 2013;50(7):729-736.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Woods  ER, Bhaumik  U, Sommer  SJ,  et al.  Community asthma initiative: evaluation of a quality improvement program for comprehensive asthma care. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):465-472.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bunik  M, Federico  MJ, Beaty  B, Rannie  M, Olin  JT, Kempe  A.  Quality improvement for asthma care within a hospital-based teaching clinic. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(1):58-65.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fox  P, Porter  PG, Lob  SH, Boer  JH, Rocha  DA, Adelson  JW.  Improving asthma-related health outcomes among low-income, multiethnic, school-aged children: results of a demonstration project that combined continuous quality improvement and community health worker strategies. Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):e902-e911.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Szefler  SJ.  Challenges in assessing outcomes for pediatric asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(5)(suppl):S456-S464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Halterman  JS, Szilagyi  PG, Fisher  SG,  et al.  Randomized controlled trial to improve care for urban children with asthma: results of the School-Based Asthma Therapy trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(3):262-268.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Supplement.

eFigure 1. Sample Provider Prompt

eFigure 2. Sample Caregiver Prompt

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,104 Views
0 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
Distributions of Test Results Illustrate the Spectrum Problem

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed