社区药房简易哮喘控制筛查工具的性能:横断面和前瞻性纵向分析。

Kate S LeMay, Carol L Armour, Helen K Reddel
{"title":"社区药房简易哮喘控制筛查工具的性能:横断面和前瞻性纵向分析。","authors":"Kate S LeMay, Carol L Armour, Helen K Reddel","doi":"10.4104/pcrj.2014.00011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.</p>","PeriodicalId":48998,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442279/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of a brief asthma control screening tool in community pharmacy: a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kate S LeMay, Carol L Armour, Helen K Reddel\",\"doi\":\"10.4104/pcrj.2014.00011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Guidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48998,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6442279/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary Care Respiratory Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2014.00011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2014.00011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:指南建议哮喘管理以哮喘控制评估为基础。目的:描述药房哮喘控制筛查工具(PACS)与哮喘控制问卷(ACQ-6)的性能比较:数据来源于澳大利亚一项社区药房哮喘管理项目的多中心研究,该项目在六个月内进行了三到四次访问。符合条件的参与者哮喘控制未达理想水平,或近期未因哮喘就诊。通过 PACS 工具和 ACQ-6 对基线和六个月的哮喘控制情况进行评估:共有 570 名患者报名参加,其中 398 人(70%)完成了该计划。基线时 ACQ-6 平均得分为 1.58±1.05,6 个月后为 0.96±0.88(n=392)。PACS "控制不佳 "对哮喘控制不佳(ACQ- 6 >1.0)的敏感性和特异性在基线时分别为 0.92 和 0.66,在 6 个月后分别为 0.76 和 0.83。两个工具在六个月时的一致性为中等(κ=0.54)。在研究期间,两种工具都出现了非常明显的变化(p 结论:这项研究表明,在社区药房使用简单的哮喘控制筛查工具是可行的,而且在识别哮喘控制不佳的患者方面具有良好的灵敏度。筛查工具可用于初级保健,以确定需要对其哮喘状况进行更详细评估的患者,而对于长期监测哮喘控制情况而言,连续的控制测量方法更为合适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Performance of a brief asthma control screening tool in community pharmacy: a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal analysis.

Background: Guidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care.

Aims: To describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6).

Methods: Data were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6.

Results: A total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31).

Conclusions: This study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Primary Care Respiratory Journal PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Management, morbidity and mortality of COPD during an 11-year period: an observational retrospective epidemiological register study in Sweden (PATHOS). Chronic disease co-morbidity of asthma and unscheduled asthma care among adults: results of the national telephone health interview survey German Health Update (GEDA) 2009 and 2010. Transgenerational occurrence of allergic disease and autoimmunity: general practice-based epidemiological research. Are GOLD ABCD groups better associated with health status and costs than GOLD 1234 grades? A cross-sectional study. Indolent pneumonia in a pregnant recent immigrant from Ethiopia: think TB.
×
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