Behavioral Interventions to Improve Asthma Outcomes for Adolescents

Table of Contents

Addressing the Research Question

The present paper analyzes a systematic review conducted by Mosnaim et al. (2016). The chosen article addresses a clearly focused issue, namely, health outcomes in young asthma patients after behavioral interventions. Thus, even though it was not clearly mentioned in the body of the paper, one may easily define the PICO question. It may sound as follows: “Do adolescent asthma patients (P – patient problem) who underwent behavioral intervention (I – intervention) improve asthma management (O – desired outcome) as opposed to those who did not receive such type of counseling (C – comparison)?”

The topic chosen by Mosnaim et al. (2016) is narrow enough for the findings to have practical implications. The researchers focus on a specific age group, adolescents, that experience unique challenges related to this chronic condition. The target aggregate is defined as children and teenagers between the ages of nine and sixteen. Further, Mosnaim et al. (2016) do not merely outline the contributing factors to exacerbation and improvement of asthma symptoms in the chosen demographic. Instead, they acknowledge the wide variety of environmental and social triggers and clearly communicate that their factor of interest is behavioral interventions.

Further, Mosnaim et al. (2016) clearly operationalize the notion of improvement in asthma patients as enhanced self-management and adherence to corticosteroid medications. Drawing on previous literature on the topic, the researchers define four levels of asthma intervention:

  1. Child and family (family support, knowledge, and self-management);
  2. Home environment (exposure to allergens, irritants, pollutants, and other triggers);
  3. Medical care (health workers’ compliance with national asthma guidelines);
  4. Community (school-based programs to promote asthma self-management) (Ashley, Freemer, Garbe, & Rowson, 2017).

The study’s findings match the initial research question and provide recommendations for allergists and immunologists dealing with adolescents with asthma. Mosnaim et al. (2016) showed that school-based interventions prevailed over home-based interventions. Lectures, training sessions, ongoing monitoring and counseling were found to be mostly useful in reducing asthma flare ups and addressing common triggers (Mosnaim et al., 2016). On the other hand, some studies from the sample were not conclusive enough to make any generalizations.

Study Search Quality

Mosnaim et al. (2016) state that they completed the systematic review of the literature in full compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reference standards. Upon further investigation, one may conclude that the present review follows all of the essential guidelines. First, as Stewart et al. (2015) state, all information sources should be properly described. Mosnaim et al. (2016) list all the databases they consulted, namely, PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, and CINAH. Further, they explain the appropriate data coverage: the electronic search includes titles and abstracts.

Articles were limited to those addressing human health and published in the English language between January 1, 2000, and August 10, 2014. However, they do not give any information on whether they contacted study authors to identify additional studies that might have been absent from the databases.

According to Moher, Altman, Schulz, Simera, and Wager (2014), the second essential recommendation to follow is present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, which Mosnaim et al. (2016) did. The researchers provided a full list of keywords and search requests they used when compiling the sample of articles. Some of the most frequently used combinations included education, self-management, behavioral, trigger reduction, and technology. All these strategies served the purpose, which was to identify and single out behavioral interventional studies in adolescent asthma patients.

Originally, Mosnaim et al. (2016) did not impose any limits on the acceptable age range. This allowed them to view articles with cross age ranges and those that focused on multiple age groups. However, eventually, Mosnaim et al. (2016) only reviewed the articles whose sample populations had a mean or median age between 11 and 16. Further, the researchers applied the following eligibility criteria:

  1. Teenage populations with asthma;
  2. Studies that focused on behavioral interventions;
  3. Described interventions could be conducted at any of the four levels: child and family, home, medical setting, and community;
  4. National and international studies.

The exclusion criteria helped discern the appropriate studies from those that were not exactly asthma-focused or where the interventions were performed on a population other than the target age group.

To make sure that their review is complete. Mosnaim et al. (2016) checked the cited references at the end of the selected articles. The researchers went even further and expanded the scope of their investigation to include the references used in the references. However, they did not include unpublished data and abstracts, nor did they contact experts in the field for further evidence not available in databases.

Thus, one may conclude that the results of this systematic review might be skewed due to selection bias (Malone, Nicholl, & Tracey, 2014). Admittedly, a study that shows a positive association between the chosen variables is more likely to be published. This tendency leads to the phenomenon when studies with negative or inconclusive results are ignored by the scientific community even though they are needed for the full picture.

High Methodological Quality and Validity of the Studies

After the extensive search, Mosnaim et al. (2016) selected 24 articles, some of which yielded multiple publications. However, each behavioral intervention (n=21) was only counted once. For each article, Mosnaim et al. (2016) outlined the sample size, intervention, patient population, control, outcomes and results, timeframe, setting, and intervention level (out of four). Further, if specified, the outcomes were defined as primary and/ or secondary and positive or negative.

Researchers addressed the validity of each of the studies analyzed and checked its methodology for potential bias and limitations. One of the most frequent problems associated with the compiled sample was insufficient numbers of participants, which did not allow for easy inference. For instance, the study by Bruzzese, Unikel, Gallagher, Evans, and Colland (2008) only focused on 24 asthma patients. Even though the results were promising as they showed improvements in self-management after the intervention, the small sample size remains a major flaw.

Another significant drawback of the present systematic review is the lack of stated compliance to the evidence-based practice guidelines which are generally used for critical appraisal of peer-reviewed articles (LoBiondo-Wood & Haber, 2017). Further, Mosnaim et al. (2016) acknowledge the high subjectivity of the chosen studies. Namely, they note that while the overwhelming majority of the studies showed positive results, none of these were demonstrated using an objective measurement. The latter may entail spirometry to measure lung function or electronic monitoring of medication adherence. There was not much discrepancy in study results as they all employed approximately the same experimental design with no control. This lack of the point of reference can also be seen as one of the review’s flaws.

References

Ashley, P. J., Freemer, M., Garbe, P., & Rowson, D. (2017). Coordinated federal actions are needed to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in childhood asthma. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(2), 207-209.

Bruzzese, J.M., Unikel, L., Gallagher, R., Evans, D., & Colland, V. (2008). Feasibility and impact of a school-based intervention for families of urban adolescents with asthma: Results from a randomized pilot trial. Family Process, 47, 95–113.

LoBiondo-Wood, G., & Haber, J. (2017). Nursing research-E-book: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences.

Malone, H., Nicholl, H., & Tracey, C. (2014). Awareness and minimisation of systematic bias in research. British Journal of Nursing, 23(5), 279-282.

Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Simera, I., & Wager, E. (Eds.). (2014). Guidelines for reporting health research: A user’s manual. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Mosnaim, G. S., Pappalardo, A. A., Resnick, S. E., Codispoti, C. D., Bandi, S., Nackers, L.,… & Powell, L. H. (2016). Behavioral interventions to improve asthma outcomes for adolescents: A systematic review. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 4(1), 130-141.

Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R. D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., & Tierney, J. F. (2015). Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: The PRISMA-IPD statement. Jama, 313(16), 1657-1665.

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with Online Academic Experts
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
English 101
very good paper thank you.
Customer 453083, February 18th, 2022
Literature
Thank you!
Customer 453145, April 19th, 2022
Education
Very fast response and did a excellent job.
Customer 453201, May 31st, 2022
English 101
Thank you for this excellent analysis of the Alchemist.
Customer 453213, June 15th, 2022
English 101
thank you for the excellent work
Customer 452883, October 29th, 2021
History
Thank you. No issues
Customer 453139, April 17th, 2022
Business Studies
First of all, the writer made sure that he completely understood my assignment and all the guidelines before he began writing. My paper was finished very fast and well before the specified deadline. I thought it was written excellently. He definitely completely grasped the topic. Overall, he is a great writer and I couldn't have asked for better.
Customer 452441, November 29th, 2021
Accounting
Looks amazing!
Customer 453283, September 2nd, 2022
Nursing
Thank you
Customer 453087, March 5th, 2022
Psychology
quick, fast and exact!
Customer 453027, May 24th, 2022
Business and administrative studies
awesome work
Customer 453201, June 15th, 2022
Social Work and Human Services
Great work I would love to continue working with this writer thought out the 11 week course.
Customer 452667, May 30th, 2021
11,595
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
37%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Live ChatWhatsApp