ArticleThe Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma2018
Medication identification in pediatric asthma (MED ID): The reliability and validity of a novel screening tool.
Article in The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Improving asthma self-management education through inhaler labeling.PEC innovation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the reliability and validity of medication identification (MED ID), a novel survey assessing caregiver-perceived ability to identify inhaled asthma medications.
methodsWe analyzed baseline data from the School-Based Asthma Care for Teens trial in Rochester, NY. Caregivers of adolescents with persistent asthma named the inhaled medications used by their child and identified medications on a pictorial chart. Accurate identification was defined as completed matches between listed names and selected images. Caregivers answered the MED ID survey of four scaled questions on perceived ability to identify inhaled medications. We determined internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha; examined concurrent validity by comparing MED ID sum scores with accurate identification using bivariate and multivariate analyses; and assessed the diagnostic utility of MED ID through receiver operating characteristic analysis.
results126 caregivers (76% of enrolled) reported >1 inhaled medication; 52% of caregivers accurately identified medications. Two MED ID questions were removed during analysis. The two remaining questions had a score range of 2-10 points; higher scores indicate greater caregiver-perceived ability to identify medications. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.603. Accurate identification of medications was associated with a higher mean MED ID score (8.6 vs 7.6, p = 0.01). Accuracy was most strongly associated with MED ID scores ≥8 points (88% vs 60%, p < 0.001, Phi 0.32); findings were consistent in regression analysis. The greatest area under the curve was seen with MED ID scores ≥8 points (0.638).
conclusionsThe two-item MED ID survey is a reliable and valid way to assess caregiver's ability to identify inhaled asthma medications.
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.