ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2020
Assessment of perception, attitude, and practice of primary care practitioners towards allergic rhinitis practice guidelines: Development and validation of a new questionnaire.
Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving Towards an Integrated Approach to Allergic Rhinitis Management: ARIA and EUFOREA Guidelines Similarities and Differences.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
- A scoping review of Rasch analysis and item response theory in otolaryngology: Implications and future possibilities.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Article
- Multidisciplinary management of type 2 inflammation diseases using a screening tool.Frontiers in allergy · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a pharmacist-led education model in allergic rhinitis management: a multi-phase study.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2023Article
- Allergic rhinitis guidelines knowledge, attitudes, and practices among primary health care physicians: A national multicentre cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2023Article
- Knowledge of, Attitudes towards, and Practices of Intranasal Corticosteroids Usage among the Allergic Rhinitis Patients of Northern Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Primary care management of allergic rhinitis: a cross-sectional study in four ASEAN countries.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care practitioners (PCPs), being the front liners, play an important role in treating allergic rhinitis (AR). As there is no proper tool to assess their perception, attitude, and practice in utilizing the guidelines, we aimed to develop and validate a new questionnaire for such purpose.
methodsThe development phase consists of both literature and expert panel review. The validation phase consists of content validity, face validity, and construct validity. Cronbach's alpha was used to verify internal consistency. The development phase produced a questionnaire with 3 domains: perception, attitude, and practice consisting of 60 items (PAP-PCP questionnaire). Item response theory analysis for perception demonstrated the difficulty and discrimination values were acceptable except for 3 items. Exploratory factor analysis for attitude and practice domains showed the psychometric properties were good except for 3 items in practice domain. Experts judgement was used to decide on the final selection of questionnaire which consists of 59 items.
resultsThe final validated questionnaire has 3 domains with 59 items. All domains had Cronbach's alpha above 0.65 which was reliable. 302 physicians completed the questionnaire. 98% PCPs diagnosed AR based on clinical history. Although, majority agree AR guidelines is useful (67%), they had difficulty in using it to classify AR (54.9%) and determine AR severity (73.9%). Oral anti-histamines (first and second generation) were the most prescribed (>75%) followed by intranasal corticosteroids (59%) and combined intranasal corticosteroid and oral anti-histamine (51%). Majority agreed that treatment efficacy (81.8%), adverse effects (83.8%), fear of adverse effects (73.5%), route of administration (69.4%), dosing frequency (72.5%), taste (64.6%) and cost (73.5%) affect treatment compliance.
conclusionsThe newly developed and validated questionnaire is a promising instrument in understanding the treatment gap in AR. Although further testing and refinement are needed, it provides an initial means for evaluating knowledge and understanding of PCPs in treating AR.
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.