ArticleThe Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma2018
Engaging end-users in intervention research study design.
Article in The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coordinated Health Care Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) plan.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2023Article
- Incorporating systems-level stakeholder perspectives into the clinical trial design of school-supervised asthma therapy.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- Formative research implications on design of a randomized controlled trial for oral health promotion in children.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCoordinated Healthcare Interventions for Childhood Asthma Gaps in Outcomes (CHICAGO) Plan is a 3-arm multicenter pragmatic trial to evaluate asthma interventions in high-risk Chicago children presenting to emergency departments (ED) with asthma. A formative evaluation with end-users to provide input into the trial design and outcome instruments was conducted prior to trial initiation.
methodsA multi-level data gathering framework from the field of design and standard qualitative methods was employed. This included one focus group with asthma Community Health Workers (N = 8), two focus groups with caregivers of children with asthma (N = 9), in-home interviews with caregivers (N = 9), key informant interviews at six EDs and outpatient clinical sites (N = 19), and ED tours and observations (N = 6). Data were presented, discussed, and organized into themes.
resultsData indicated that changes to the study design and discharge tool were warranted. A key insight was that ED discharge protocols typically place patient education at a single inopportune time, as families are preparing to leave the ED. At this point in time, families are less receptive to education due to fatigue and a desire to expedite the discharge process. The trial design was modified to reposition the discharge asthma plan to occur at earlier "teachable moments." Delivery of the asthma discharge plan was assigned to study-employed ED coordinators instead of ED providers and staff. Other potential challenges to study recruitment and implementation were raised and addressed.
conclusionsEngagement of end-users in the design phase of implementation research is critical to improve research feasibility and relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.