ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2015
Acceptability and preference of three inhalation devices assessed by the Handling Questionnaire in asthma and COPD patients.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhaler device feature preferences among patients with obstructive lung diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Satisfaction, preference and error occurrence of three dry powder inhalers as assessed by a cohort naïve to inhaler operation.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Trial
- Recalibrating Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Nebulizers versus Inhalers for Maintenance Therapy in COPD: Past as Prologue.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Review
- People living with moderate-to-severe COPD prefer improvement of daily symptoms over the improvement of exacerbations: a multicountry patient preference study.ERJ open research · 2022Article
- Inhaler devices in asthma and COPD patients - a prospective cross-sectional study on inhaler preferences and error rates.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Article
- Inhaler Devices in a Geriatric Patient Population: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study on Patient Preferences.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Inhaler Devices for Delivery of LABA/LAMA Fixed-Dose Combinations in Patients with COPD.Pulmonary therapy · 2019Review
- Choosing the right inhaler for your asthma or COPD patient.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2019Review
- Single Inhaler LABA/LAMA for COPD.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Maintenance inhaler preference, attribute importance, and satisfaction in prescribing physicians and patients with asthma, COPD, or asthma-COPD overlap syndrome consulting for routine care.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Article
- The Nurse Practitioners' Perspective on Inhaler Education in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Canadian respiratory journal · 2018Review
- A Network Meta-Analysis of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist (LAMA) and Long-Acting βPulmonary therapy · 2017Article
- The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016Article
- Need of education for dry powder inhaler storage and retention - a patient-reported survey.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2016Article
- Aclidinium bromide in fixed-dose combination with formoterol fumarate in the management of COPD: an update on the evidence base.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseReview
- Improving usability and maintaining performance: human-factor and aerosol-performance studies evaluating the new reusable Respimat inhaler.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseArticle
- Inhaler usability of a pressurized metered dose inhaler and a soft mist inhaler in patients with COPD: A simulated-use study.Chronic respiratory diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe patients' criteria of preference for inhalation devices can affect the extent of their adherence to treatment and outcomes. Aim of this study was to assess and compare the patients' preference and acceptability (PPA) for Breezhaler and Genuair (both Dry Powder Inhalers), and for Respimat (a Soft Mist Inhaler) in asthma and COPD out-patients by means of the Handling Questionnaire.
methodsThe Handling Questionnaire is a validated instrument which allows the investigation of different domains of PPA; it also takes into account the patients' age and gender, together with their previous experience with the inhalation devices and their previous education approach to them. Differences in terms of preference, acceptance and usability were assessed by linear and logistic regressions in order to evaluate factors influencing the proper actuation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Data from 333 patients were collected: Genuair and Respimat were the most liked and perceived as the easiest to use at glance by patients, but also as the least problematic according to the patients' and nurse's judgments. Mean number of attempts for achieving the first effective actuation was the highest with Breezhaler (2.6 vs 1.6; p <0.0001). Linear regressions showed that longer the explanation, higher was the number of attempts to the first proper actuation (0.58 additional attempts every 10 s increase in the first explanation, p <0.0001). Devices requiring less manoeuvres for the actuation were used properly after less attempts (0.38 increase in the number of attempts every additional manoeuvres, p <0.0001). Respimat proved to be the most indicated in COPD patients since it was the most liked and its successful rate at first attempt was the highest. Logistic regressions confirmed these data. Previous experience with DPIs and/or MDIs did not affect the patient preference and acceptability, independently whether suffering from asthma or COPD.
conclusionsSubstantial differences are existing in patient's preference and acceptability for inhalation devices, mainly related to the handling and the understanding of the different devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.