BreatheSuite MDI在计量吸入器技术评估中的有效性:一项验证研究(预印本)

Meshari F Alwashmi, Gerald Mugford, Brett Vokey, Waseem Abu-Ashour, John Hawboldt
{"title":"BreatheSuite MDI在计量吸入器技术评估中的有效性:一项验证研究(预印本)","authors":"Meshari F Alwashmi, Gerald Mugford, Brett Vokey, Waseem Abu-Ashour, John Hawboldt","doi":"10.2196/26556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The majority of medications used in treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are taken through metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). Studies have reported that most patients demonstrate poor inhaler technique, which has resulted in poor disease control. Digital Health applications have the potential to improve the technique and adherence of inhaled medications.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of the BreatheSuite MDI device in assessing the technique of taking a dose via an MDI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was a validation study. Thirty participants who self-reported a diagnosis of asthma or COPD were recruited from community pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants used a BreatheSuite MDI device attached to a placebo MDI and resembled taking 3 doses. Pharmacists used a scoring sheet to evaluate the technique of using the MDI. An independent researcher compared the results of the pharmacist's scoring sheet with the results of the BreatheSuite device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study found that the BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique. The data recorded by the BreatheSuite MDI device showed that all participants performed at least one error in using the MDI. The BreatheSuite device captured approximately 40% (143/360) more errors compared to observation alone. The distribution of participants who performed errors in MDI steps as recorded by BreatheSuite compared to errors reported by observation alone were as follows: shaking before actuation, 33.3% (30/90) versus 25.5% (23/90); upright orientation of the inhaler during actuation, 66.7% (60/90) versus 18.87% (17/90); coordination (actuating after the start of inhalation), 76.6% (69/90) versus 35.5% (32/90); and duration of inspiration, 96.7% (87/90) versus 34.4% (31/90).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique, which were missed by observation alone. It has the potential to enhance treatment outcomes among patients with chronic lung diseases.</p>","PeriodicalId":87288,"journal":{"name":"JMIR biomedical engineering","volume":" ","pages":"e26556"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11041462/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of the BreatheSuite Device in Assessing the Technique of Metered-Dose Inhalers: Validation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Meshari F Alwashmi, Gerald Mugford, Brett Vokey, Waseem Abu-Ashour, John Hawboldt\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/26556\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The majority of medications used in treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are taken through metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). Studies have reported that most patients demonstrate poor inhaler technique, which has resulted in poor disease control. Digital Health applications have the potential to improve the technique and adherence of inhaled medications.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of the BreatheSuite MDI device in assessing the technique of taking a dose via an MDI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was a validation study. Thirty participants who self-reported a diagnosis of asthma or COPD were recruited from community pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants used a BreatheSuite MDI device attached to a placebo MDI and resembled taking 3 doses. Pharmacists used a scoring sheet to evaluate the technique of using the MDI. An independent researcher compared the results of the pharmacist's scoring sheet with the results of the BreatheSuite device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study found that the BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique. The data recorded by the BreatheSuite MDI device showed that all participants performed at least one error in using the MDI. The BreatheSuite device captured approximately 40% (143/360) more errors compared to observation alone. The distribution of participants who performed errors in MDI steps as recorded by BreatheSuite compared to errors reported by observation alone were as follows: shaking before actuation, 33.3% (30/90) versus 25.5% (23/90); upright orientation of the inhaler during actuation, 66.7% (60/90) versus 18.87% (17/90); coordination (actuating after the start of inhalation), 76.6% (69/90) versus 35.5% (32/90); and duration of inspiration, 96.7% (87/90) versus 34.4% (31/90).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique, which were missed by observation alone. It has the potential to enhance treatment outcomes among patients with chronic lung diseases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR biomedical engineering\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e26556\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11041462/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR biomedical engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/26556\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR biomedical engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/26556","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:治疗哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病(COPD)的大多数药物都是通过计量吸入器(MDI)吸入的。研究报告显示,大多数患者的吸入器使用技术较差,导致疾病控制不佳。数字健康应用有可能改善吸入药物的技术和依从性:本研究旨在验证 "呼吸套件 "计量吸入器设备在评估计量吸入器服药技术方面的有效性:该研究是一项验证性研究。从加拿大纽芬兰和拉布拉多的社区药房招募了 30 名自我报告诊断为哮喘或慢性阻塞性肺病的参与者。参与者使用了与安慰剂计量吸入器相连的 "呼吸套件 "计量吸入器装置,类似于服用 3 次剂量。药剂师使用评分表对使用计量吸入器的技术进行评估。一名独立研究人员将药剂师的评分表结果与 "呼吸套件 "装置的结果进行了比较:这项研究发现,"呼吸套件 "计量吸入器能够客观地检测出计量吸入器技术中的若干错误。呼吸之音 "计量吸入器记录的数据显示,所有参与者在使用计量吸入器时都至少出现过一次错误。与单独观察相比,"呼吸之音 "设备发现的错误要多出约 40%(143/360)。与仅通过观察报告的错误相比,呼吸套件记录的参与者在使用计量吸入器步骤中出现错误的分布情况如下:启动前摇晃,33.3%(30/90)对 25.5%(23/90);直立,33.3%(30/90)对 25.5%(23/90)。5%(23/90);吸入时吸入器的直立方向,66.7%(60/90)对 18.87%(17/90);协调(吸入开始后启动),76.6%(69/90)对 35.5%(32/90);吸气持续时间,96.7%(87/90)对 34.4%(31/90):结论:"呼吸套件 "计量吸入器能客观地检测出计量吸入器技术中的若干错误,而这些错误仅靠观察是无法发现的。它有望提高慢性肺部疾病患者的治疗效果。
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
Effectiveness of the BreatheSuite Device in Assessing the Technique of Metered-Dose Inhalers: Validation Study.

Background: The majority of medications used in treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are taken through metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). Studies have reported that most patients demonstrate poor inhaler technique, which has resulted in poor disease control. Digital Health applications have the potential to improve the technique and adherence of inhaled medications.

Objective: This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of the BreatheSuite MDI device in assessing the technique of taking a dose via an MDI.

Methods: The study was a validation study. Thirty participants who self-reported a diagnosis of asthma or COPD were recruited from community pharmacies in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. Participants used a BreatheSuite MDI device attached to a placebo MDI and resembled taking 3 doses. Pharmacists used a scoring sheet to evaluate the technique of using the MDI. An independent researcher compared the results of the pharmacist's scoring sheet with the results of the BreatheSuite device.

Results: This study found that the BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique. The data recorded by the BreatheSuite MDI device showed that all participants performed at least one error in using the MDI. The BreatheSuite device captured approximately 40% (143/360) more errors compared to observation alone. The distribution of participants who performed errors in MDI steps as recorded by BreatheSuite compared to errors reported by observation alone were as follows: shaking before actuation, 33.3% (30/90) versus 25.5% (23/90); upright orientation of the inhaler during actuation, 66.7% (60/90) versus 18.87% (17/90); coordination (actuating after the start of inhalation), 76.6% (69/90) versus 35.5% (32/90); and duration of inspiration, 96.7% (87/90) versus 34.4% (31/90).

Conclusions: The BreatheSuite MDI can objectively detect several errors in the MDI technique, which were missed by observation alone. It has the potential to enhance treatment outcomes among patients with chronic lung diseases.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Trends in South Korean Medical Device Development for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Narrative Review. Classifying Residual Stroke Severity Using Robotics-Assisted Stroke Rehabilitation: Machine Learning Approach. Assessing the Accuracy of Smartwatch-Based Estimation of Maximum Oxygen Uptake Using the Apple Watch Series 7: Validation Study. Agreement Between Apple Watch and Actical Step Counts in a Community Setting: Cross-Sectional Investigation From the Framingham Heart Study. Stroke Survivors' Interaction With Hand Rehabilitation Devices: Observational 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