Home > Promising Practices > Environmental Improvements Brought by the Legal Interventions in the Homes of Poorly Controlled Inner-City Adult Asthmatic Patients

Environmental Improvements Brought by the Legal Interventions in the Homes of Poorly Controlled Inner-City Adult Asthmatic Patients

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

Patients received legal assistance at a New York City medical clinical to improve rental housing environments by demanding that landlords fix leaks, exterminate pests, or provide a different apartment.

Goal / Mission

The goal is to use a medical-legal collaborative intervention to force landlords into maintaining healthy living conditions for residents with poorly controlled asthma.

Impact

This proof-of concept study exhibits that medical-legal collaboration can significantly impact the control of inner-city asthmatics by improving their domestic environment.

Results / Accomplishments

ED visits and hospital admissions declined 91% (from 22 ED visits and 11 admissions to 2 ED visits and 1 admission). All patients had reductions in dose and/or number of medications post-intervention, and 92% (11) dropped 2 or more classes in asthma severity.

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center
Topics
Environmental Health / Built Environment
Environmental Health
Environmental Health / Environmental Justice
Organization(s)
St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center
Source
Journal of Asthma
Date of publication
10/1/2012
Geographic Type
Urban
Location
New York City, New York
For more details
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23020301
Submitted By
HCI

Related Promising Practices

  1. Asthma Basics for Children (ABC)
  2. Asthma Care Training (ACT) for Kids
  3. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Asthma Control: Home-Based Multi-Trigger, Multicomponent Environmental Interventions

More

Related Content for: Environmental Improvements Brought by the Legal Interventions in the Homes of Poorly Controlled Inner-City Adult Asthmatic Patients

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.