药师指导下吸入器技术教育对慢性阻塞性肺疾病及哮喘患者的影响

IF 0.5 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research Pub Date : 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1093/jphsr/rmad032
J. Cohen, Iris Rosenbaum, B. Oberman, Irit Katz, Naama Sharabi, D. Shlomi
{"title":"药师指导下吸入器技术教育对慢性阻塞性肺疾病及哮喘患者的影响","authors":"J. Cohen, Iris Rosenbaum, B. Oberman, Irit Katz, Naama Sharabi, D. Shlomi","doi":"10.1093/jphsr/rmad032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The core treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is inhalers. Today, there are many types of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powdered inhalers (DPIs). Each inhaler requires special sequential manoeuvres and coordination. It is well-known from previous studies that most patients perform at least one mistake using their inhaler which may lead to ineffective drug delivery and poor disease control. The aim of this study is to measure the proportion of patients who used the inhalers in a fully effective way before and after the pharmacist’s guidance.\n \n \n \n Patients prescribed inhalers for asthma and COPD, were offered by the local pharmacist to personally assess and correct their inhaler use technique over two visits. At each visit, before any pharmacist correction of technique, a general score for inhaler technique was given and 16 types of mistakes were assessed. Comparisons of inhaler technique were made between the two visits.\n \n \n \n Sixty patients aged 21–91 (median 69; IQR 48–78) participated in the initial session of which 35 (58%) were females using 81 inhalers (DPI-60, pMDI-21). A fully effective inhaler technique was found in nine patients (15%) using 13 inhalers (16%) while 22 inhalers (27%) were used fully ineffectively (there were no statistically significant differences between DPIs and pMDIs). Twenty-three patients using 24 inhalers returned for a second visit in which 12 patients (52%, P = 0.0014 between the visits) used 12 inhalers (50%) fully effectively and only three inhalers (12.5%) were used fully ineffectively (P = 0.0045 between the visits). The odds for using the inhaler fully effectively were 5.2 (95% CI, 1.9 to 14.2; P = 0.0011) times higher on the second visit.\n \n \n \n Personal pharmacist guidance can improve inhaler technique in a low socio-economic neighbourhood. However, larger multicentre studies that will also examine clinical outcomes are needed.\n","PeriodicalId":16705,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of pharmacist-guided inhaler technique education on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma patients\",\"authors\":\"J. Cohen, Iris Rosenbaum, B. Oberman, Irit Katz, Naama Sharabi, D. Shlomi\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jphsr/rmad032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n The core treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is inhalers. Today, there are many types of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powdered inhalers (DPIs). Each inhaler requires special sequential manoeuvres and coordination. It is well-known from previous studies that most patients perform at least one mistake using their inhaler which may lead to ineffective drug delivery and poor disease control. The aim of this study is to measure the proportion of patients who used the inhalers in a fully effective way before and after the pharmacist’s guidance.\\n \\n \\n \\n Patients prescribed inhalers for asthma and COPD, were offered by the local pharmacist to personally assess and correct their inhaler use technique over two visits. At each visit, before any pharmacist correction of technique, a general score for inhaler technique was given and 16 types of mistakes were assessed. Comparisons of inhaler technique were made between the two visits.\\n \\n \\n \\n Sixty patients aged 21–91 (median 69; IQR 48–78) participated in the initial session of which 35 (58%) were females using 81 inhalers (DPI-60, pMDI-21). A fully effective inhaler technique was found in nine patients (15%) using 13 inhalers (16%) while 22 inhalers (27%) were used fully ineffectively (there were no statistically significant differences between DPIs and pMDIs). Twenty-three patients using 24 inhalers returned for a second visit in which 12 patients (52%, P = 0.0014 between the visits) used 12 inhalers (50%) fully effectively and only three inhalers (12.5%) were used fully ineffectively (P = 0.0045 between the visits). The odds for using the inhaler fully effectively were 5.2 (95% CI, 1.9 to 14.2; P = 0.0011) times higher on the second visit.\\n \\n \\n \\n Personal pharmacist guidance can improve inhaler technique in a low socio-economic neighbourhood. However, larger multicentre studies that will also examine clinical outcomes are needed.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":16705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmad032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jphsr/rmad032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的核心治疗方法是吸入器。如今,有许多类型的加压计量吸入器(pMDI)和干粉吸入器(DPI)。每个吸入器都需要特殊的顺序操作和协调。从以前的研究中可以看出,大多数患者在使用吸入器时至少犯了一个错误,这可能导致药物输送无效和疾病控制不力。本研究的目的是测量在药剂师指导前后以完全有效的方式使用吸入器的患者比例。当地药剂师为哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者开了吸入器,让他们在两次就诊中亲自评估和纠正他们的吸入器使用技术。在每次就诊时,在药剂师对技术进行任何纠正之前,对吸入器技术进行一般评分,并评估16种类型的错误。对两次访问的吸入器技术进行了比较。60名年龄在21-91岁(中位数69;IQR 48-78)的患者参加了最初的治疗,其中35名(58%)为女性,使用81种吸入器(DPI-60,pMDI-21)。在9名患者(15%)中发现了一种完全有效的吸入器技术,使用了13种吸入器(16%),而22种吸入器的使用完全无效(DPI和pMDI之间没有统计学上的显著差异)。23名使用24个吸入器的患者返回第二次就诊,其中12名患者(52%,两次就诊之间P=0.0014)完全有效地使用了12个吸入器(50%),只有3名吸入器(12.5%)完全无效地使用(两次就诊间P=0.0045)。第二次就诊时,完全有效使用吸入器的几率高5.2倍(95%置信区间,1.9至14.2;P=0.0011)。个人药剂师指导可以改善低社会经济水平地区的吸入器技术。然而,还需要更大规模的多中心研究来检查临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The impact of pharmacist-guided inhaler technique education on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma patients
The core treatment for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is inhalers. Today, there are many types of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powdered inhalers (DPIs). Each inhaler requires special sequential manoeuvres and coordination. It is well-known from previous studies that most patients perform at least one mistake using their inhaler which may lead to ineffective drug delivery and poor disease control. The aim of this study is to measure the proportion of patients who used the inhalers in a fully effective way before and after the pharmacist’s guidance. Patients prescribed inhalers for asthma and COPD, were offered by the local pharmacist to personally assess and correct their inhaler use technique over two visits. At each visit, before any pharmacist correction of technique, a general score for inhaler technique was given and 16 types of mistakes were assessed. Comparisons of inhaler technique were made between the two visits. Sixty patients aged 21–91 (median 69; IQR 48–78) participated in the initial session of which 35 (58%) were females using 81 inhalers (DPI-60, pMDI-21). A fully effective inhaler technique was found in nine patients (15%) using 13 inhalers (16%) while 22 inhalers (27%) were used fully ineffectively (there were no statistically significant differences between DPIs and pMDIs). Twenty-three patients using 24 inhalers returned for a second visit in which 12 patients (52%, P = 0.0014 between the visits) used 12 inhalers (50%) fully effectively and only three inhalers (12.5%) were used fully ineffectively (P = 0.0045 between the visits). The odds for using the inhaler fully effectively were 5.2 (95% CI, 1.9 to 14.2; P = 0.0011) times higher on the second visit. Personal pharmacist guidance can improve inhaler technique in a low socio-economic neighbourhood. However, larger multicentre studies that will also examine clinical outcomes are needed.
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
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research
Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
The revised patient attitudes to deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire: an investigation using a large anonymized database Evaluation of a structured pharmacist-led intervention on glycemic control in underprivileged diabetic patients: a randomized open-label trial Cross-sectional study of pharmacists’ knowledge and beliefs about human papillomavirus, its vaccines, and barriers related to vaccine administration Analysis of cancer drugs receiving FDA’s Accelerated Approval between 1992 and 2021 Navigating digital health: perspectives of Australian community pharmacists—a short communication
×
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