Comparative analysis between PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening in smokers

Narra J Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.52225/narra.v4i1.654
Risa RB. Sebayang, P. Pandia, Andika Pradana, A. P. Tarigan, A. Wahyuni
{"title":"Comparative analysis between PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) screening in smokers","authors":"Risa RB. Sebayang, P. Pandia, Andika Pradana, A. P. Tarigan, A. Wahyuni","doi":"10.52225/narra.v4i1.654","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a significant global challenge, impacting health systems, economies, and societies. Its prevalence is anticipated to rise owing to an aging demographic. Although the PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires are available for COPD screening, their comparative effectiveness has not been studied in Indonesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires as screening tools for COPD among smokers. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Universitas Sumatera Utara Hospital and H. Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia, from December 2022 to February 2023. Smokers aged over 40 or above with a history of smoking more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and no previous COPD diagnosis were included in the study. To collect the responses to PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaire, face-to-face interviews were conducted, followed by a spirometry test. A total of 76 smokers were included in the study; the predominant age group was 51–60 years (36.8%), with the majority being male (81.6%). Most participants began smoking at ages 15−20 years (65.8%) and had been smoking for 20–30 years (36.8%) at a moderate intensity (44.8%). Spirometry tests indicated obstructive patterns in 50 participants, with 17 classified as severe obstruction. At a cut-off score of ≥6, the PUMA questionnaire yielded a sensitivity of 72.55% and a specificity of 84%. In contrast, the CAPTURE questionnaire, with a cut-off score of ≥4, exhibited a sensitivity of 70.83% and a specificity of 64.29%. These results imply that the PUMA questionnaire could be more efficient in COPD screening compared to the CAPTURE questionnaire.\n\n","PeriodicalId":507105,"journal":{"name":"Narra J","volume":"40 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Narra J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v4i1.654","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) presents a significant global challenge, impacting health systems, economies, and societies. Its prevalence is anticipated to rise owing to an aging demographic. Although the PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires are available for COPD screening, their comparative effectiveness has not been studied in Indonesia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaires as screening tools for COPD among smokers. A cross-sectional study was conducted at Universitas Sumatera Utara Hospital and H. Adam Malik General Hospital, Medan, Indonesia, from December 2022 to February 2023. Smokers aged over 40 or above with a history of smoking more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and no previous COPD diagnosis were included in the study. To collect the responses to PUMA and CAPTURE questionnaire, face-to-face interviews were conducted, followed by a spirometry test. A total of 76 smokers were included in the study; the predominant age group was 51–60 years (36.8%), with the majority being male (81.6%). Most participants began smoking at ages 15−20 years (65.8%) and had been smoking for 20–30 years (36.8%) at a moderate intensity (44.8%). Spirometry tests indicated obstructive patterns in 50 participants, with 17 classified as severe obstruction. At a cut-off score of ≥6, the PUMA questionnaire yielded a sensitivity of 72.55% and a specificity of 84%. In contrast, the CAPTURE questionnaire, with a cut-off score of ≥4, exhibited a sensitivity of 70.83% and a specificity of 64.29%. These results imply that the PUMA questionnaire could be more efficient in COPD screening compared to the CAPTURE questionnaire.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于吸烟者慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)筛查的 PUMA 和 CAPTURE 问卷的比较分析
慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)是一项重大的全球性挑战,对卫生系统、经济和社会都造成了影响。由于人口老龄化,预计慢性阻塞性肺病的发病率还会上升。虽然 PUMA 和 CAPTURE 问卷可用于慢性阻塞性肺病筛查,但在印尼尚未对其比较效果进行研究。本研究旨在评估 PUMA 和 CAPTURE 问卷作为吸烟者慢性阻塞性肺病筛查工具的有效性。这项横断面研究于 2022 年 12 月至 2023 年 2 月在印度尼西亚棉兰的苏门答腊犹他大学医院(Universitas Sumatera Utara Hospital)和 H. Adam Malik 综合医院(H. Adam Malik General Hospital)进行。研究对象包括年龄在40岁以上、一生中吸烟超过100支且未确诊过慢性阻塞性肺病的吸烟者。为收集对 PUMA 和 CAPTURE 问卷的答复,研究人员进行了面对面访谈,随后进行了肺活量测试。研究共纳入了 76 名吸烟者;主要年龄组为 51-60 岁(36.8%),男性占多数(81.6%)。大多数参与者从 15-20 岁开始吸烟(65.8%),吸烟时间为 20-30 年(36.8%),吸烟强度适中(44.8%)。肺活量测试显示,50 名参与者存在阻塞模式,其中 17 人被归类为严重阻塞。在截断分数≥6 时,PUMA 问卷的灵敏度为 72.55%,特异性为 84%。相比之下,截断分数≥4 分的 CAPTURE 问卷的灵敏度为 70.83%,特异度为 64.29%。这些结果表明,与 CAPTURE 问卷相比,PUMA 问卷在慢性阻塞性肺病筛查中更为有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of educational programs about HIV prevention on knowledge, attitude, and behavior among adolescents New zeolite-based composite pads with high-volume blood absorption for early warning of postpartum hemorrhage Effect of black garlic (Allium sativum) on gonadosomatic index, follicle-stimulating hormone level and spermatozoa quality: A study in monosodium glutamate-exposed rat model Global prevalence and determinants associated with the acceptance of monkeypox vaccination Role of digital education through smartphones in improving knowledge among asthma patients: A preliminary study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1