Evaluation of Knowledge and Skills of Patients With Asthma and COPD in Using Inhaled Therapy

Nevhiz Gundogdu, N. Benlier
{"title":"Evaluation of Knowledge and Skills of Patients With Asthma and COPD in Using Inhaled Therapy","authors":"Nevhiz Gundogdu, N. Benlier","doi":"10.1097/CPM.0000000000000363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and skills in the use of inhaler devices in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who presented to our clinic for the first time. The patients were enrolled in the study by a pulmonologist. All patients were asked to demonstrate how they used their inhaler device and were assigned scores for their performance. A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study. Discus (36.1%) and Aerolizer (31.5%) were the most commonly used devices. Patients of both sexes made more errors in the 2 steps of inhaler use (putting the device into the mouth and holding breath after inhalation) in comparison to other steps, with no significant sex difference (49.1% of the females, 62.7% of the males; P=0.15 and 0.62, respectively). Higher education level was associated with higher total scores, greater dexterity, and perceived therapeutic benefit in relation to the correct use of the inhaler device (P<0.001, 0.006, and 0.017, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed in total scores, ease of use of the device, and perceived benefit from treatment in relation to the inhaler device used (P=0.148, 0.114, and 0.994, respectively). No significant impact of the initial training provider was found on total scores, ease of use, and perceived therapeutic benefit (P=0.073, 0.201, and 0.292, respectively). Total scores, ease of use, and perceived therapeutic benefit increased with higher level of education. However, the person providing education on the inhaler technique had no significant impact on these variables.","PeriodicalId":10393,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"94 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/CPM.0000000000000363","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CPM.0000000000000363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate knowledge and skills in the use of inhaler devices in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who presented to our clinic for the first time. The patients were enrolled in the study by a pulmonologist. All patients were asked to demonstrate how they used their inhaler device and were assigned scores for their performance. A total of 108 patients were enrolled in the study. Discus (36.1%) and Aerolizer (31.5%) were the most commonly used devices. Patients of both sexes made more errors in the 2 steps of inhaler use (putting the device into the mouth and holding breath after inhalation) in comparison to other steps, with no significant sex difference (49.1% of the females, 62.7% of the males; P=0.15 and 0.62, respectively). Higher education level was associated with higher total scores, greater dexterity, and perceived therapeutic benefit in relation to the correct use of the inhaler device (P<0.001, 0.006, and 0.017, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed in total scores, ease of use of the device, and perceived benefit from treatment in relation to the inhaler device used (P=0.148, 0.114, and 0.994, respectively). No significant impact of the initial training provider was found on total scores, ease of use, and perceived therapeutic benefit (P=0.073, 0.201, and 0.292, respectively). Total scores, ease of use, and perceived therapeutic benefit increased with higher level of education. However, the person providing education on the inhaler technique had no significant impact on these variables.
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
哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入治疗知识和技能的评价
本研究旨在评估首次到我们诊所就诊的哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者吸入器使用的知识和技能。这些病人是由一位肺病专家登记参加这项研究的。所有患者都被要求展示他们如何使用吸入器装置,并对他们的表现进行评分。共有108名患者参加了这项研究。铁饼(36.1%)和雾化器(31.5%)是最常用的器械。与其他步骤相比,男女患者在吸入器使用的2个步骤(将吸入器放入口中和吸入后屏住呼吸)中出现的错误较多,性别差异无统计学意义(女性占49.1%,男性占62.7%;P分别=0.15和0.62)。更高的教育水平与更高的总分、更大的灵活性以及与正确使用吸入器装置相关的感知治疗益处相关(P分别<0.001、0.006和0.017)。在总得分、设备的易用性以及与所使用的吸入器设备相关的治疗获益方面,未观察到统计学上的显著差异(P分别=0.148、0.114和0.994)。未发现初始培训提供者对总分、易用性和感知治疗获益有显著影响(P分别=0.073、0.201和0.292)。随着教育水平的提高,总得分、易用性和感知到的治疗益处也随之增加。然而,提供吸入器技术教育的人对这些变量没有显著影响。
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
Clinical Pulmonary Medicine
Clinical Pulmonary Medicine Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Clinical Pulmonary Medicine provides a forum for the discussion of important new knowledge in the field of pulmonary medicine that is of interest and relevance to the practitioner. This goal is achieved through mini-reviews on focused sub-specialty topics in areas covered within the journal. These areas include: Obstructive Airways Disease; Respiratory Infections; Interstitial, Inflammatory, and Occupational Diseases; Clinical Practice Management; Critical Care/Respiratory Care; Colleagues in Respiratory Medicine; and Topics in Respiratory Medicine.
期刊最新文献
Systemic sclerosis associated myopathy: how to treat. Axillary lymphadenopathy in a high-risk breast screening patient following the COVID-19 vaccine: a diagnostic conundrum. Is a Trial of Observation Safer Than Intervention With Spontaneous Pneumothorax? The Complex Relationship Between Poor Sleep Quality and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease The Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis and the Role of Lung Biopsy
×
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