Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35908142›Full record

ArticlePulmonary therapy2022

Exploring General Practitioners' Preferences and Experience with Respiratory Inhaler Devices.

Biljana Cvetkovski, Charlotte Hespe, Rachel House, Vicky Kritikos, Elizabeth Azzi, Jack Evans, Pamela Srour-Alphonse, Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pulmonary therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. NEXThalerJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Biljana CvetkovskiQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Charlotte HespeSchool of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Rachel HouseQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Vicky KritikosQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Elizabeth AzziQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jack EvansQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Pamela Srour-AlphonseQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sinthia Bosnic-AnticevichQuality Use of Respiratory Medicine Group, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Sinthia.bosnic-anticevich@sydney.edu.au.
Woolcock Institute of Medical Research · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUThe University of Notre Dame Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCorrect inhaler technique is essential for the optimal delivery of inhaled medicines and the successfully management of respiratory conditions. The general practitioner (GP), the prescriber of inhaled medicines, plays a crucial role in educating patients on inhaler technique. However, in the real-world setting, there are barriers. For the GP, it is time and competence and for the patient, it is their ability to recognise inhaler technique as an issue and their ability to maintain correct inhaler technique over time. This study aimed to determine GPs' experience, skills and priority placed on inhaler technique and to identify factor(s) associated with inhaler technique competence.

methodsThis cross-sectional observational study design surveyed GPs' perspectives on inhaler use and preferences for inhaler prescribing within their practice setting. GP inhaler technique was assessed. GPs were recruited through an established network of GP practices. Data collected include (i) practice demographics, (ii) inhaler technique opinions and experience, (iii) inhaler prescribing preferences and (iv) inhaler education history data. Data were analysed descriptively and multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to explore the relationship between outcomes and GPs' ability to use devices correctly.

resultsA total of 227 GPs completed the inhaler survey. Sixty-three percent of GPs reported receiving previous inhaler education and 73.3% educated or checked their patients' inhaler technique; 64.5% felt they were somewhat competent in doing so. GPs who reported not demonstrating inhaler technique believed that a pharmacist or a practice nurse would do so. When prescribing new inhaler devices, GPs considered the disease being treated first and then patient's experience with inhalers; they often already have an inhaler preference and this was related to familiarity and perceived ease of use. For GPs, inhaler competence was not associated with their previous inhaler education or the priority placed on inhaler technique.

conclusionGPs do recognise the importance of inhaler technique in respiratory management but their technique can be better supported with regular educational updates to inform them about new inhalers and management practices and to support appropriate inhaler choices for their patients.

Indexed as

AsthmaCOPDGeneral practitionersInhaler techniqueTraining

Identifiers

PMID35908142
PMCPMC9458836
OpenAlexW4288902346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.