ArticleCureus2026
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Intern Doctors Regarding the Use of Inhalation Devices at a Tertiary Care Teaching Rural Hospital.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundInhalation therapy is the cornerstone of management for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma, offering rapid therapeutic onset, lower dosage requirements, and fewer systemic adverse effects than oral formulations. However, the clinical efficacy of aerosolized pharmacotherapy depends heavily on proper inhalation technique. As frontline healthcare providers frequently tasked with patient counseling and device demonstration, medical interns play a pivotal role in ensuring proper device utilization. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes, and practical competencies regarding metered-dose inhalers (MDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs), and spacer devices among medical interns at a rural tertiary care teaching hospital.
methodsA questionnaire-based, cross-sectional observational study was conducted among medical interns at Smt. B.K. Shah Medical Institute and Research Centre following Institutional Ethics Committee approval. A prevalidated, structured questionnaire evaluating theoretical knowledge, clinical awareness, environmental considerations, and practical demonstration skills regarding MDIs, DPIs, and spacer devices was administered. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using frequencies and percentages.
resultsA total of 139 completed questionnaires out of 146 distributed were analyzed, yielding a response rate of 95.2%. Overall, theoretical knowledge was high: 126 (90.6%) participants recognized the correct procedural sequence for MDIs, 135 (97.1%) correctly identified common patient errors with MDIs, and 125 (89.9%) and 129 (92.8%) demonstrated accurate knowledge regarding DPI technique and common DPI errors, respectively. Furthermore, 126 (90.6%) understood the comparative environmental footprints of MDIs vs. DPIs, and 131 (94.2%) were aware of potential adverse effects. However, a notable discrepancy was observed in clinical practice: only 103 (74.1%) had demonstrated MDI technique to patients, with even lower demonstration rates for DPIs (n = 98, 70.5%) and spacers (n = 97, 69.8%).
conclusionsAlthough theoretical comprehension of inhalation devices was high among intern doctors, substantial deficits persist in practical demonstration and bedside patient education. Incorporating structured, hands-on workshops, Objective Structured Clinical Examinations, and dedicated inhalation-technique modules into undergraduate medical curricula is imperative to bridge the theory-practice gap, optimize rational prescribing, and improve clinical outcomes in obstructive airway diseases.
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.