Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/53637
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorCranston, J.-
dc.contributor.authorCrockett, A.-
dc.contributor.authorMoss, J.-
dc.contributor.authorPegram, R.-
dc.contributor.authorStocks, N.-
dc.date.issued2008-
dc.identifier.citationMedical Journal of Australia, 2008; 188(8 Suppl):S50-S52-
dc.identifier.issn0025-729X-
dc.identifier.issn1326-5377-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/53637-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To review the literature for any promising strategies for the primary care management of mild-to-moderate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults. Methods: Using “MeSH” terms for COPD, asthma and primary health care, we conducted an extensive literature search for relevant meta-analyses, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, reports and individual studies. Grey literature was also included. We chose a narrative review approach because of substantial heterogeneity of study designs in the literature. Results: 1119 articles of potential relevance were retained, of which 246 were included in our review. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether general practitioners with a special interest (GPwSI) in respiratory care improved the diagnosis and management of mild-to-moderate COPD. An asthma service involving GPwSI increased respiratory drug costs but reduced the costs for less specific drugs. No clear benefit has been shown for practice nurse-run asthma clinics in primary care compared with usual care in altering asthma morbidity, quality of life, lung function or medication use. Evidence to determine the effectiveness of practice nurse-run COPD clinics could not be found. Self-management education, GP review and action plans may produce short-term benefits for asthma patients, particularly those with moderate-to-severe disease, but the evidence for a similar approach to patients with mild-to-moderate COPD is equivocal. There has been poor uptake of respiratory clinical guidelines relevant to primary care — partly because most guidelines are based on moderate-to-severe disease. Spirometry programs in primary care are useful for differential diagnosis of asthma and COPD. Spirometry may alter the management of mild asthma, but there is a lack of evidence that it alters the management of COPD in primary care. Conclusion: The role of primary health care in management of mild-to-moderate asthma and COPD requires further investigation using randomised controlled trials.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJosephine M. Cranston, Alan J. Crockett, John R. Moss, Robert W. Pegram and Nigel P. Stocks-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherAustralasian Med Publ Co Ltd-
dc.source.urihttp://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/188_08_210408/cra11057_fm.html-
dc.subjectHumans-
dc.subjectAsthma-
dc.subjectPulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive-
dc.subjectModels, Theoretical-
dc.subjectPrimary Health Care-
dc.titleModels of chronic disease management in primary care for patients with mild-to-moderate asthma or COPD: a narrative review-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01744.x-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidMoss, J. [0000-0003-4216-1761]-
dc.identifier.orcidStocks, N. [0000-0002-9018-0361]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 5
General Practice publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.