Optimising Asthma Control in a Sub-Saharan African Population: Assessing Agreement among Five Standardized Questionnaires.

Q4 Medicine
West African journal of medicine Pub Date : 2026-04-30
F M Kehinde, O Awopeju, O O Adewole, M Afolabi, T Adejuyigbe, B Adeniyi, G E Erhabor
{"title":"Optimising Asthma Control in a Sub-Saharan African Population: Assessing Agreement among Five Standardized Questionnaires.","authors":"F M Kehinde, O Awopeju, O O Adewole, M Afolabi, T Adejuyigbe, B Adeniyi, G E Erhabor","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Asthma management prioritises symptom control, typically assessed using standardized questionnaires. However, comparative data on their performance and agreement remain scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a cross-sectional study of 100 adults [79% females, mean age 38.1±14.6 years] with physician-diagnosed asthma at a Nigerian tertiary hospital, asthma control was evaluated using Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7), Royal Society of Physicians 3 Questions (RCP-3Qs) and Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (ATAQ). Agreement was measured with Cohen's kappa statistics. Diagnostic accuracy for GINA-defined well-controlled asthma was analysed using ROC-derived thresholds, with GINA serving as the reference standard to assess the performance of ACT, ACQ, RCP-3Qs, and ATAQ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The level of controlled asthma ranged from 73% to 83% across tools. Agreement among control tools was low; GINA showed slight agreement with others (κ = 0.018-0.107), while ACT and ACQ had moderate agreement (κ = 0.546). ACT, ACQ, and RCP-3Qs demonstrated strong diagnostic accuracy for identifying GINA-defined well-controlled asthma (AUC 0.90; 95% CI: ACT 0.76-0.95; ACQ 0.75-0.94; RCP-3Qs 0.78-0.92), whereas ATAQ performed poorly (AUC 0.5; 95% CI: 0.29-0.59). At pre-specified thresholds of >20, ≤1.57, ≤1 and 0.5, the specificity of ACT, ACQ, RCP-3Qs, and ATAQ was 92.6%, 70.4%, 70.4%, and 85.2%, respectively; while sensitivity was 73.7%, 94.7%, 100%, and 26.3%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ACT, ACQ, and RCP-3Q effectively identified GINA-defined well-controlled asthma, while ATAQ showed poor diagnostic value. Low agreement among the tools suggests they are not interchangeable for assessing asthma control.</p>","PeriodicalId":23680,"journal":{"name":"West African journal of medicine","volume":"43 1","pages":"35-41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"West African journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Asthma management prioritises symptom control, typically assessed using standardized questionnaires. However, comparative data on their performance and agreement remain scarce in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Methods: In a cross-sectional study of 100 adults [79% females, mean age 38.1±14.6 years] with physician-diagnosed asthma at a Nigerian tertiary hospital, asthma control was evaluated using Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-7), Royal Society of Physicians 3 Questions (RCP-3Qs) and Asthma Therapy Assessment Questionnaire (ATAQ). Agreement was measured with Cohen's kappa statistics. Diagnostic accuracy for GINA-defined well-controlled asthma was analysed using ROC-derived thresholds, with GINA serving as the reference standard to assess the performance of ACT, ACQ, RCP-3Qs, and ATAQ.

Results: The level of controlled asthma ranged from 73% to 83% across tools. Agreement among control tools was low; GINA showed slight agreement with others (κ = 0.018-0.107), while ACT and ACQ had moderate agreement (κ = 0.546). ACT, ACQ, and RCP-3Qs demonstrated strong diagnostic accuracy for identifying GINA-defined well-controlled asthma (AUC 0.90; 95% CI: ACT 0.76-0.95; ACQ 0.75-0.94; RCP-3Qs 0.78-0.92), whereas ATAQ performed poorly (AUC 0.5; 95% CI: 0.29-0.59). At pre-specified thresholds of >20, ≤1.57, ≤1 and 0.5, the specificity of ACT, ACQ, RCP-3Qs, and ATAQ was 92.6%, 70.4%, 70.4%, and 85.2%, respectively; while sensitivity was 73.7%, 94.7%, 100%, and 26.3%.

Conclusion: ACT, ACQ, and RCP-3Q effectively identified GINA-defined well-controlled asthma, while ATAQ showed poor diagnostic value. Low agreement among the tools suggests they are not interchangeable for assessing asthma control.

优化哮喘控制在撒哈拉以南非洲人口:评估协议之间的五个标准化问卷。
背景:哮喘管理优先于症状控制,通常使用标准化问卷进行评估。然而,在撒哈拉以南非洲,关于其执行情况和协议的比较数据仍然很少。方法:对尼日利亚某三级医院100名经医生诊断患有哮喘的成年人(79%为女性,平均年龄38.1±14.6岁)进行横断面研究,采用全球哮喘行动计划(GINA)、哮喘控制测试(ACT)、哮喘控制问卷(ACQ-7)、英国皇家医师学会3题(RCP-3Qs)和哮喘治疗评估问卷(ATAQ)对哮喘控制情况进行评估。用Cohen的kappa统计来衡量一致性。采用roc衍生阈值分析GINA定义的控制良好的哮喘的诊断准确性,GINA作为评估ACT、ACQ、rcp - 3q和ATAQ表现的参考标准。结果:哮喘控制水平从73%到83%不等。控制工具之间的一致性较低;GINA与其他指标有轻微一致性(κ = 0.018-0.107), ACT与ACQ有中度一致性(κ = 0.546)。ACT、ACQ和RCP-3Qs在识别gina定义的控制良好的哮喘方面表现出很强的诊断准确性(AUC 0.90; 95% CI: ACT 0.76-0.95; ACQ 0.75-0.94; RCP-3Qs 0.78-0.92),而ATAQ表现较差(AUC 0.5; 95% CI: 0.29-0.59)。在预先设定的阈值bbb20、≤1.57、≤1和0.5时,ACT、ACQ、RCP-3Qs和ATAQ的特异性分别为92.6%、70.4%、70.4%和85.2%;敏感性分别为73.7%、94.7%、100%和26.3%。结论:ACT、ACQ和RCP-3Q能有效识别gina定义的控制良好的哮喘,而ATAQ的诊断价值较差。这些工具之间的一致性较低,表明它们在评估哮喘控制方面不可互换。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
West African journal of medicine
West African journal of medicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
212
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书