Charrois 2006.
Methods | Randomised trial | |
Participants | 71 participants with high‐risk asthma (intervention 37; control 34) Community pharmacies in 2 remote rural communities Alberta, Canada Year of study: Not stated. |
|
Interventions | Intervention patients received education on asthma (medications, inhaler technique, written asthma education materials and development of action plan), Optimisation of drug therapy and assessment of adherence with formal onward referral as needed to respiratory therapist or physician Follow‐up at 2 weeks by telephone call and at 1, 2, 4 and 6 months Duration: 6 months |
|
Outcomes | Number of hospitalisations, Asthma Control Questionaire | |
Notes | Funding source: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Health Economics, University Hospital Foundation, and ASTHMA Study (Alberta Strategy to Help Manage Asthma) Conflict of interest: Not stated |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | The patient is randomised by an internet randomisation service through the Epidemiology Coordinating and Research (EPICORE) Centre, University of Alberta. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | As 2 sites did not have internet access, sealed envelopes are provided for randomisation. To help ensure balance, randomisation was done in blocks of 6 and stratified by site. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | High risk | Performance of usual care may have been influenced by intervention. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All Outcomes/Outcome 1 | Low risk | Hospitalisation is an objective measure. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Between group attrition > 10%, however, intention‐to‐treat analysis seems to have been undertaken. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Main outcome measures reported |
Other bias | Unclear risk | Contamination of the usual‐care group may have occurred, as the caregivers involved in the study were not blinded. As part of the study implementation, we met with all local physicians. |