This research was supported by Grant 5-R01HL068654 from the Lung Division of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
An Evaluation of Asthma Interventions for Preteen Students
Article first published online: 20 JAN 2010
© 2010, American School Health Association
Journal of School Health
Volume 80, Issue 2, pages 80–87, February 2010
How to Cite
Clark, N. M., Shah, S., Dodge, J. A., Thomas, L. J., Andridge, R. R. and Little, R. J.A. (2010), An Evaluation of Asthma Interventions for Preteen Students. Journal of School Health, 80: 80–87. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00469.x
- Issue published online: 20 JAN 2010
- Article first published online: 20 JAN 2010
- Received February 16, 2009Accepted July 07, 2009
- disease management;
BACKGROUND: Asthma is a serious problem for low-income preteens living in disadvantaged communities. Among the chronic diseases of childhood and adolescence, asthma has the highest prevalence and related health care use. School-based asthma interventions have proven successful for older and younger students, but results have not been demonstrated for those in middle school.
METHODS: This randomized controlled study screened students 10–13 years of age in 19 middle schools in low-income communities in Detroit, Michigan. Of the 6872 students who were screened, 1292 students were identified with asthma. Schools were matched and randomly assigned to Program 1 or 2 or control. Baseline, 12, and 24 months data were collected by telephone (parents), at school (students) and from school system records. Measures were the students' asthma symptoms, quality of life, academic performance, self-regulation, and asthma management practices. Data were analyzed using multiple imputation with sequential regression analysis. Mixed models and Poisson regressions were used to develop final models.
RESULTS: Neither program produced significant change in asthma symptoms or quality of life. One produced improved school grades (p = .02). The other enhanced self-regulation (p = .01) at 24 months. Both slowed the decline in self-regulation in undiagnosed preteens at 12 months and increased self-regulation at 24 months (p = .04; p = .003).
CONCLUSION: Programs had effects on academic performance and self-regulation capacities of students. More developmentally focused interventions may be needed for students at this transitional stage. Disruptive factors in the schools may have reduced both program impact and the potential for outcome assessment.