Economic evidence for nonpharmacological asthma management interventions: A systematic review

C-J Crossman-Barnes, A Peel, R Fong-Soe-Khioe, T Sach, A Wilson, G Barton

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
14 Downloads (Pure)


Asthma management, education and environmental interventions have been reported as cost‐effective in a previous review (Pharm Pract (Granada), 2014;12:493), but methods used to estimate costs and outcomes were not discussed in detail. This review updates the previous review by providing economic evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and a detailed assessment of the methods used in all identified studies. Twelve databases were searched from 1990 to January 2016, and studies included economic evaluations, asthma subjects and nonpharmacological interventions written in English. Sixty‐four studies were included. Of these, 15 were found in addition to the earlier review; 53% were rated fair in quality and 47% high. Education and self‐management interventions were the most cost‐effective, in line with the earlier review. Self‐reporting was the most common method used to gather resource‐use data, accompanied by bottom‐up approaches to estimate costs. Main outcome measures were asthma‐related hospitalizations (69%), quality of life (41%) and utility (38%), with AQLQ and the EQ‐5D being the most common questionnaires measured prospectively at fixed time points. More rigorous costing methods are needed with a more common quality of life tool to aid greater replicability and comparability amongst asthma studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1182-1195
Number of pages14
Issue number6
Early online date6 Nov 2017
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018


  • asthma
  • cost-effective
  • methodology
  • review

Cite this