Trial reportJournal of pediatric psychology2024
Results of the RVA Breathes randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Addressing Pediatric Asthma Disparities through RI-AIR's Community Approach: A Randomized Trial.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Trial
- Mapping Randomized Controlled Trials of Family- and Community-Centered Healthcare Interventions for Pediatric Asthma, Type 1 Diabetes, or Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study tested a randomized controlled trial of RVA Breathes, a community asthma program, in reducing asthma-related healthcare utilization among children living in an area with a high poverty rate.
methodsParticipants included 250 caregivers (78% African American/Black; 73.3% household income<$25,000/year) and their children with asthma (5-11 years). Inclusion criteria included an asthma-related emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization, unscheduled doctor's visit, or systemic steroids in the past 2 years. Families were randomized to a full active intervention (asthma education with community health workers [CHWs], home remediation with home assessors, and a school nurse component; n = 118), partial active intervention (asthma education and home remediation; n = 69), or a control group (n = 63) for 9 months. Measures on healthcare utilization and asthma-related factors were collected. Follow-up assessments occurred across a 9-month period.
resultsAlthough we did not find any significant effects, there was a trend toward significance for a group by time effect with objective healthcare utilization as the outcome (F4,365 = 2.28, p = .061). The full intervention group experienced a significant decrease from baseline to 9-month follow-up compared with the other groups (p < .001). Only the full intervention group experienced a significant increase in reported asthma action plans across time (no significant group effect).
conclusionsIn the context of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a substantial global decrease in healthcare utilization, the study's main hypotheses were not supported. Nevertheless, findings support the benefit of community asthma programs that integrate care across multiple settings and connect families with CHWs.
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.