Incorporating family therapy into asthma group intervention: a randomized waitlist-controlled trial. Family therapy in the treatment of severe childhood asthma. Childhood asthma. A controlled trial of family psychotherapy. Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Home-based family intervention for low-income children with asthma: a randomized controlled pilot study. Pilot study of a home-based asthma health education program. A pilot study of the multidisciplinary management of childhood asthma in a family practice. Emergency department allies: a controlled trial of two emergency department-based follow-up interventions to improve asthma outcomes in children. Group discussions with parents have long-term positive effects on the management of asthma with good cost-benefit.
Asthma psychoeducational programs have been found to be effective in terms of symptom-related outcome. They are mostly illness-focused, and pay minimal attention to systemic/familial factors. This study evaluated a novel asthma psychoeducation program that adopted a parallel group design and incorporated family therapy. A randomized waitlist-controlled crossover clinical trial design was adopted. Children with stable asthma and their parents were recruited from a pediatric chest clinic. Outcome measures included, for the patients: exhaled nitric oxide (eNO), spirometry, and adjustment to asthma; and for the parents: perceived efficacy in asthma management, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety subscale, Body Mind Spirit Well-being Inventory emotion subscale, and Short Form 12 health-related quality of life scale. Forty-six patients participated in the study. Attrition rates were 13.0% and 26.0% for the active and control groups, respectively. Repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant decrease in airway inflammation, as indicated by eNO levels, and an increase in patient's adjustment to asthma and parents' perceived efficacy in asthma management. Serial trend analysis revealed that most psychosocial measures continued to progress steadily after intervention. Significant improvements in both symptom-related measures and mental health and relationship measures were observed. The findings supported the value of incorporating family therapy into asthma psychoeducation programs. Eighteen children with severe, chronic bronchial asthma were randomly divided into two groups. The families in one group received family therapy while the others served as a control group in a controlled family therapy study. Later the control families were also offered therapy in a before-after therapy design. All children were followed for 3 1/2 yr. Asthma symptoms, functional impairment and the use of drug (from diaries) were rated in ten different ways during eight months before and eight months after the family therapy. Improvement in the clinically most important variable, i.e. general pediatric assessment, was greater in the children in the family therapy group compared to the control group (p less than 0.05) Twelve children who received family therapy showed significant improvement after treatment concerning general pediatric assessment (p less than 0.01), clinical grading (p less than 0.05), peak expiratory flow (p less than 0.05), days with functional impairment/yr (p less than 0.05), no. of doses of inhaled Beta-2-agonists/month (p less than 0.01) and nights when Beta-2-agonists were inhaled (p less than 0.05). The children who only received conventional medical treatment showed no significant change in asthma symptoms. We draw the conclusion that family therapy may represent a valuable therapeutic tool in the management of severe asthma. In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of family psychotherapy as an adjunct conventional treatment in childhood asthma, children with moderate to severe asthma were randomly allocated to a control group or to an experimental group; the latter group received 6 hours of family treatment during a 4-month period, and both groups had standard medical treatment. While there was no significant difference between the two groups on three parameters, the experimental group were significantly better in day-wheeze score and thoracic gas volume. These results suggest that family treatment in selected cases may have a place in the overall management of childhood asthma, and that more research with larger numbers of children is necessary. Homeopathy is frequently used to treat asthma in children. In the common classical form of homeopathy, prescriptions are individualised for each patient. There has been no rigorous investigation into this form of treatment for asthma.
                In a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial the effects of individualised homeopathic remedies were compared with placebo medication in 96 children with mild to moderate asthma as an adjunct to conventional treatment. The main outcome measure was the active quality of living subscale of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaire administered at baseline and follow up at 12 months. Other outcome measures included other subscales of the same questionnaire, peak flow rates, use of medication, symptom scores, days off school, asthma events, global assessment of change, and adverse reactions.
                There were no clinically relevant or statistically significant changes in the active quality of life score. Other subscales, notably those measuring severity, indicated relative improvements but the sizes of the effects were small. There were no differences between the groups for other measures.
                This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care. Low-income African American children have disproportionately higher asthma morbidity and mortality. Education alone may not address barriers to asthma management due to psychosocial stress. This study evaluated the efficacy of a home-based family intervention integrating asthma education and strategies to address stress using a community-based participatory research model. Children age 8 to 13 with poorly controlled asthma and their caregivers were recruited from an urban hospital and an asthma camp. Caregivers with elevated scores on a stress measure were enrolled. Forty-three families were randomized to the 4- to 6-session Home Based Family Intervention (HBFI) or the single session of Enhanced Treatment as Usual (ETAU). All families received an asthma action plan and dust mite covers; children performed spirometry and demonstrated MDI/spacer technique at each home visit. The HBFI addressed family-selected goals targeting asthma management and stressors. Asthma management, morbidity, family functioning, and caregiver stress were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and 6 months after the intervention. ED visits and hospitalizations were ascertained by medical record review for a year after intervention completion. Only one child (5%) in HBFI had an asthma-related hospitalization compared to 7 patients (35%) in ETAU in the year following intervention. Participants in both groups demonstrated improved asthma management and family functioning, and reduced ED visits, symptom days, missed school days, and caregiver stress, but there were no differential treatment effects. The results suggest that a home-based intervention addressing medical and psychosocial needs may prevent hospitalizations for children with poorly controlled asthma and caregivers under stress.
                (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved. Caring for a child with asthma can affect the parent's coping and well-being and coping strategies. This study examined the influence of a home-based asthma health education program on parental coping and quality of life.
                Randomized controlled non-blinded clinical trial.
                Northern community pediatrician's office.
                Families whose children, under the age of 11, had chronic stable asthma, and who presented to the pediatrician's office for continuing care; those with an acute exacerbation of asthma were excluded.
                Families were randomly assigned to receive either a single two-hour, standardized home-based asthma health education session or a booklet representing conventional care.
                One and three-months following the intervention, assessments were obtained for coping measured by Hymovich's Parent Perception Inventory (PPI), quality of life measured by the Pediatric Asthma Caregiver Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ) and change in asthma measured by the Caregiver Perception of Change (CPC) survey.
                Forty families were recruited and randomized; baseline characteristics were similar between groups. At the final follow-up, reduction in parental need for asthma information (p = 0.04), reduction in parental concerns (p = 0.02) and increased use of coping strategies (p = 0.04) were observed in the home-based care group. Improvement was noted in the parent's perception of their child's asthma in the home-based asthma education group (p = 0.01). Quality of life as measured by the PACQLQ remained unchanged over the intervention period (p > 0.05).
                These results suggest the use of a one-time, flexible, home-based intervention to assist families caring for children with asthma should be considered and appears effective. A small, controlled trial of joint treatment of childhood asthma by a doctor, a physiotherapist, a psychologist, and a social worker, working together in the family setting, demonstrated an improvement in ventilatory capacity. The limited scope of this trial does not permit more general conclusions as to the effect of such treatment on the severity and frequency of attacks, but the observation that some measurable physiological improvement occurred suggests that the place of multidisciplinary nonpharmaceutical management of childhood asthma should be investigated in more detail. We sought to study the impact of emergency department (ED)-based intensive primary care linkage and initiation of asthma case management on long-term, patient-oriented outcomes for children with an asthma exacerbation.
                Our study was a randomized, 3-arm, parallel-group, single-blind clinical trial. Children aged 2 through 17 years treated in a pediatric ED for acute asthma were randomly assigned to standard care (group 1), including patient education, a written care plan, and instructions to follow up with the primary care provider within 7 days, or 1 of 2 interventions. Group 2 received standard care plus assistance with scheduling follow-up, while group 3 received the above interventions, plus enrollment in a case management program.
                The primary outcome was the proportion of children having an ED visit for asthma within 6 months. Other outcomes included change in quality-of-life score and controller-medication use.
                Three hundred fifty-two children were enrolled; 78% completed follow-up, 69% were black, and 70% had persistent asthma. Of the children, 37.8% had a subsequent ED visit for asthma, with no difference among the treatment groups (group 1: 38.4%; group 2, 39.2%; group 3, 35.8%). Children in all groups had a substantial, but similar, increase in their quality-of-life score. Controller-medication use increased from 69.4% to 81.4%, with no difference among the groups.
                ED-based attempts to improve primary care linkage or initiate case management are no more effective than our standard ED care in improving subsequent asthma outcomes over a 6-month period. To investigate if an intervention with extra information and support in a group setting to parents of preschool children could improve adherence and clinical outcome.
                This is a controlled, prospective study where the parents of 60 newly diagnosed preschool asthmatic children aged 3 mo-6 y were randomized to either a control group or to an intervention that consisted of four group sessions in close connection with the diagnosis. The basic education on asthma and the written treatment plan were the same in both groups. The outcome measures were questionnaires to the parents and classification of the children according to symptoms and medication. The adherence rate and the burden of asthma were calculated with the help of diaries and weighing of the MDIs used between 12 and 18 mo after inclusion.
                The follow-up rate was 85% after 18 mo. The parents' presence in the sessions was around 70%, with no gender difference. The parents' view on adherence issues improved significantly in the intervention group. In the control group, 30% had poor adherence compared to 8% in the intervention group (p=0.015). Both the parents and the paediatricians underestimated the number of children with poor adherence. The children in the intervention group had significantly fewer exacerbation days during the last 6 mo-2.1 compared to 3.9 d/child-although they had lower inhaled steroid doses after 18 mo. An economic calculation showed that the intervention was profitable.
                This intervention resulted in an improvement in the parents' view on adherence, in the measured adherence rates and in the clinical outcome.
There is some indication that family therapy may be a useful adjunct to medication for children with asthma. This conclusion is limited by small study sizes and lack of standardisation in the choice of outcome measures.