Trial reportBMJ open2018
Open-label, cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a brief letter from a GP on unscheduled medical contacts associated with the start of the school year: the PLEASANT trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Establishing the best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids: the EINSTEIN systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- A letter intervention to GPs practices to promoting prescription uptake in school-age children with asthma during summer holidays (TRAINS study): a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Trial
- Analysis of recurrent events in cluster randomised trials: The PLEASANT trial case study.Statistical methods in medical research · 2025Article
- Using routine primary care data in research: (in)efficient case studies and perspectives from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Progression criteria in trials with an internal pilot: an audit of publicly funded randomised controlled trials.Trials · 2019Article
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
backgroundAsthma is seasonal with peaks in exacerbation rates in school-age children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A drop in prescription collection in August is associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the school return.
objectiveTo assess whether a public health intervention delivered in general practice reduced unscheduled medical contacts in children with asthma.
designCluster randomised trial with trial-based economic evaluation. Randomisation was at general practice level, stratified by size of practice. The intervention group received a letter from their general practitioner (GP) in late July outlining the importance of (re)taking asthma medication before the return to school. The control group was usual care.
settingGeneral practices in England and Wales.
participants12 179 school-age children in 142 general practices (70 randomised to intervention). MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled contact in September. Secondary endpoints included collection of prescriptions in August and medical contacts over 12 months (September-August). Economic endpoints were quality-adjusted life-years gained and health service costs.
resultsThere was no evidence of effect (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.25 against treatment) on unscheduled contacts in September. The intervention increased the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August by 4% (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64). The intervention also reduced the total number of medical contacts between September-August by 5% (incidence ratio 0.95; 95% CI 0.91 to 0.99).The mean reduction in medical contacts informed the health economics analyses. The intervention was estimated to save £36.07 per patient, with a high probability (96.3%) of being cost-saving.
conclusionsThe intervention succeeded in increasing children collecting prescriptions. It did not reduce unscheduled care in September (the primary outcome), but in the year following the intervention, it reduced the total number of medical contacts. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN03000938; Results.
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.