探索全科医生对呼吸吸入器装置的偏好和经验。

IF 2.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Pulmonary Therapy Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s41030-022-00197-6

Biljana Cvetkovski, Charlotte Hespe, Rachel House, Vicky Kritikos, Elizabeth Azzi, Jack Evans, Pamela Srour-Alphonse, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich

{"title":"探索全科医生对呼吸吸入器装置的偏好和经验。","authors":"Biljana Cvetkovski, Charlotte Hespe, Rachel House, Vicky Kritikos, Elizabeth Azzi, Jack Evans, Pamela Srour-Alphonse, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich","doi":"10.1007/s41030-022-00197-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Correct inhaler technique is essential for the optimal delivery of inhaled medicines and the successfully management of respiratory conditions. The general practitioner (GP), the prescriber of inhaled medicines, plays a crucial role in educating patients on inhaler technique. However, in the real-world setting, there are barriers. For the GP, it is time and competence and for the patient, it is their ability to recognise inhaler technique as an issue and their ability to maintain correct inhaler technique over time. This study aimed to determine GPs' experience, skills and priority placed on inhaler technique and to identify factor(s) associated with inhaler technique competence.Methods: This cross-sectional observational study design surveyed GPs' perspectives on inhaler use and preferences for inhaler prescribing within their practice setting. GP inhaler technique was assessed. GPs were recruited through an established network of GP practices. Data collected include (i) practice demographics, (ii) inhaler technique opinions and experience, (iii) inhaler prescribing preferences and (iv) inhaler education history data. Data were analysed descriptively and multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to explore the relationship between outcomes and GPs' ability to use devices correctly.Results: A total of 227 GPs completed the inhaler survey. Sixty-three percent of GPs reported receiving previous inhaler education and 73.3% educated or checked their patients' inhaler technique; 64.5% felt they were somewhat competent in doing so. GPs who reported not demonstrating inhaler technique believed that a pharmacist or a practice nurse would do so. When prescribing new inhaler devices, GPs considered the disease being treated first and then patient's experience with inhalers; they often already have an inhaler preference and this was related to familiarity and perceived ease of use. For GPs, inhaler competence was not associated with their previous inhaler education or the priority placed on inhaler technique.Conclusion: GPs do recognise the importance of inhaler technique in respiratory management but their technique can be better supported with regular educational updates to inform them about new inhalers and management practices and to support appropriate inhaler choices for their patients.","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/29/41030_2022_Article_197.PMC9458836.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring General Practitioners' Preferences and Experience with Respiratory Inhaler Devices.\",\"authors\":\"Biljana Cvetkovski, Charlotte Hespe, Rachel House, Vicky Kritikos, Elizabeth Azzi, Jack Evans, Pamela Srour-Alphonse, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-022-00197-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Correct inhaler technique is essential for the optimal delivery of inhaled medicines and the successfully management of respiratory conditions. The general practitioner (GP), the prescriber of inhaled medicines, plays a crucial role in educating patients on inhaler technique. However, in the real-world setting, there are barriers. For the GP, it is time and competence and for the patient, it is their ability to recognise inhaler technique as an issue and their ability to maintain correct inhaler technique over time. This study aimed to determine GPs' experience, skills and priority placed on inhaler technique and to identify factor(s) associated with inhaler technique competence.Methods: This cross-sectional observational study design surveyed GPs' perspectives on inhaler use and preferences for inhaler prescribing within their practice setting. GP inhaler technique was assessed. GPs were recruited through an established network of GP practices. Data collected include (i) practice demographics, (ii) inhaler technique opinions and experience, (iii) inhaler prescribing preferences and (iv) inhaler education history data. Data were analysed descriptively and multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to explore the relationship between outcomes and GPs' ability to use devices correctly.Results: A total of 227 GPs completed the inhaler survey. Sixty-three percent of GPs reported receiving previous inhaler education and 73.3% educated or checked their patients' inhaler technique; 64.5% felt they were somewhat competent in doing so. GPs who reported not demonstrating inhaler technique believed that a pharmacist or a practice nurse would do so. When prescribing new inhaler devices, GPs considered the disease being treated first and then patient's experience with inhalers; they often already have an inhaler preference and this was related to familiarity and perceived ease of use. For GPs, inhaler competence was not associated with their previous inhaler education or the priority placed on inhaler technique.Conclusion: GPs do recognise the importance of inhaler technique in respiratory management but their technique can be better supported with regular educational updates to inform them about new inhalers and management practices and to support appropriate inhaler choices for their patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/b3/29/41030_2022_Article_197.PMC9458836.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-022-00197-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-022-00197-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

正确的吸入器技术对于吸入药物的最佳输送和呼吸系统疾病的成功管理至关重要。全科医生(GP)，吸入药物的处方者，在教育患者吸入器技术方面起着至关重要的作用。然而，在现实世界中，存在一些障碍。对于全科医生来说，这是时间和能力，对于患者来说，这是他们认识到吸入器技术是一个问题的能力，以及他们长期保持正确吸入器技术的能力。本研究旨在确定全科医生在吸入器技术方面的经验、技能和优先级，并确定与吸入器技术能力相关的因素。方法:这项横断面观察性研究设计调查了全科医生对吸入器使用的看法和他们在实践环境中对吸入器处方的偏好。评估GP吸入器技术。全科医生是通过一个已建立的全科医生实践网络招募的。收集的数据包括(i)实践人口统计数据，(ii)吸入器技术意见和经验，(iii)吸入器处方偏好和(iv)吸入器教育历史数据。对数据进行描述性分析，并使用多元逻辑回归模型来探索结果与全科医生正确使用设备的能力之间的关系。结果:共有227名全科医生完成了吸入器调查。63%的全科医生报告接受过吸入器教育，73.3%的全科医生教育或检查过患者的吸入器技术;64.5%的人认为他们在这方面有一定的能力。报告没有展示吸入器技术的全科医生认为药剂师或执业护士会这样做。在处方新的吸入器装置时，全科医生首先考虑正在治疗的疾病，然后考虑患者使用吸入器的经历;他们通常已经有一个吸入器偏好，这与熟悉和感知易用性有关。对于全科医生，吸入器能力与他们以前的吸入器教育或优先考虑吸入器技术无关。结论:全科医生确实认识到吸入器技术在呼吸管理中的重要性，但他们的技术可以通过定期的教育更新得到更好的支持，以告知他们新的吸入器和管理实践，并支持患者选择适当的吸入器。

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

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Exploring General Practitioners' Preferences and Experience with Respiratory Inhaler Devices.

Introduction: Correct inhaler technique is essential for the optimal delivery of inhaled medicines and the successfully management of respiratory conditions. The general practitioner (GP), the prescriber of inhaled medicines, plays a crucial role in educating patients on inhaler technique. However, in the real-world setting, there are barriers. For the GP, it is time and competence and for the patient, it is their ability to recognise inhaler technique as an issue and their ability to maintain correct inhaler technique over time. This study aimed to determine GPs' experience, skills and priority placed on inhaler technique and to identify factor(s) associated with inhaler technique competence.

Methods: This cross-sectional observational study design surveyed GPs' perspectives on inhaler use and preferences for inhaler prescribing within their practice setting. GP inhaler technique was assessed. GPs were recruited through an established network of GP practices. Data collected include (i) practice demographics, (ii) inhaler technique opinions and experience, (iii) inhaler prescribing preferences and (iv) inhaler education history data. Data were analysed descriptively and multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to explore the relationship between outcomes and GPs' ability to use devices correctly.

Results: A total of 227 GPs completed the inhaler survey. Sixty-three percent of GPs reported receiving previous inhaler education and 73.3% educated or checked their patients' inhaler technique; 64.5% felt they were somewhat competent in doing so. GPs who reported not demonstrating inhaler technique believed that a pharmacist or a practice nurse would do so. When prescribing new inhaler devices, GPs considered the disease being treated first and then patient's experience with inhalers; they often already have an inhaler preference and this was related to familiarity and perceived ease of use. For GPs, inhaler competence was not associated with their previous inhaler education or the priority placed on inhaler technique.

Conclusion: GPs do recognise the importance of inhaler technique in respiratory management but their technique can be better supported with regular educational updates to inform them about new inhalers and management practices and to support appropriate inhaler choices for their patients.

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

Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

3.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6 weeks

期刊介绍： Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.