Effectiveness of a preschool asthma education programme, compared to usual care, on the frequency of acute asthma events: a community-based cluster randomised trial.

AIM: To determine whether an asthma intervention delivered within preschools can improve asthma outcomes in children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, we undertook a pragmatic, single-blind, cluster randomised trial in Auckland, New Zealand. We randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) preschools, and their children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma, to receive an asthma intervention (a 12-month respiratory nurse-led asthma assessment using an evidence-based, web-based tool and a class-based asthma education programme for four months), or a control intervention (a class-based science education programme for four months). Both groups received standard asthma management by their primary care physician. The primary outcome was the proportion of children that had at least one unscheduled ("urgent") medical or ED attendance for asthma over 12 months. RESULTS: We randomised 171 preschools, 85 to the intervention (341 children) and 86 to the control (334 children). We found no difference in the primary outcome (intervention: 216/341, 63% vs control: 181/334, 54%: adjusted Odds Ratio=1.36, 95% Confidence Interval=0.95-1.94, p=0.095). However, compared with the control group, the intervention group had improved and sustained asthma control and fewer asthma symptoms over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combining asthma education with a nurse-led, evidence-based asthma assessment and education intervention led to sustained improvements in asthma control in this preschool population, but its effect on acute events remains unclear.

Using a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of social norms feedback to reduce antibiotic prescribing without increasing inequities.

AIMS: Antibiotic overprescription is a key driver of antimicrobial resistance, and rates of community dispensing of antibiotics in New Zealand are high compared to other developed countries. We aimed to test whether a social-norm-based intervention successful elsewhere would have an effect on GPs with high prescribing rates of antibiotics. We also aimed to assess the effects on prescribing for Maori and Pacific patients. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial (n=1,214) tested the effects of a letter mailed to high-prescribing GPs that presented their prescribing data in comparison to their peers. RESULTS: In September-December 2019, after the letters were mailed, the antibiotic prescribing rate in the control arm was 178.8 patients prescribed antibiotics per 1,000 patients prescribed any medicine, and in the intervention arm it was 162.3, a relative difference of 9.2% (p<0.001). GPs in the intervention arm were responsible for an average of 173.5 prescriptions, versus an average of 186.8 prescriptions for GPs in the control arm, a relative difference of 13.3 or 7.1% (p<0.01). Exploratory analyses showed the intervention reduced prescribing to Maori and Pacific patients among historically high prescribing GPs but had no statistically significant impact on low prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted intervention using social norms reduced prescribing of antibiotics by high-prescribing GPs. Such an approach may be promising to address inequities in access to and use of antibiotics by Maori and Pacific peoples, historically underserved by prescribers, but further investigation is needed.