Critical Errors in Inhaler Technique Among Patients With Asthma and COPD: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Real-World Setting.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Italo Henrique Medeiros Damasceno, Ricardo José Fonseca De Oliveira, Sabrina Joany Felizardo Neves, Rand Randall Martins, Rodrigo Dos Santos Diniz
{"title":"Critical Errors in Inhaler Technique Among Patients With Asthma and COPD: A Cross-Sectional Study in a Real-World Setting.","authors":"Italo Henrique Medeiros Damasceno, Ricardo José Fonseca De Oliveira, Sabrina Joany Felizardo Neves, Rand Randall Martins, Rodrigo Dos Santos Diniz","doi":"10.1155/carj/8222875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The correct use of inhalation devices is essential for achieving adequate control of asthma and COPD; however, critical errors in inhalation technique are frequent and substantially reduce treatment effectiveness. This study's objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inadequate inhalation technique among patients with asthma and COPD and to identify the most common critical errors and the factors associated with incorrect use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional observational study included 575 patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with asthma and/or COPD, recruited from a university hospital outpatient pulmonology clinic and a public specialized pharmacy (Natal, Brazil). Participants completed sociodemographic questionnaires and demonstrated their inhaler technique, which was assessed using device-specific checklists to identify critical errors. Factors associated with critical errors were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only 8.2% of participants correctly performed all steps of the inhalation technique. At least one critical error was observed in 73.4% of the cohort. In multivariable analysis, advanced age (OR: 1.029; 95% CI: 1.016-1.044), use of multiple devices (OR: 2.500; 95% CI: 1.754-3.562), and type of mechanism independent of inspiration (OR: 0.262; 95% CI: 0.160-0.430; protective factor) were significantly associated with critical errors (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Inadequate inhalation technique, particularly the occurrence of critical errors, was highly prevalent, especially among older patients and those using multiple devices. Inhalers dependent on inspiratory effort demonstrated greater vulnerability to incorrect use.</p>","PeriodicalId":9416,"journal":{"name":"Canadian respiratory journal","volume":"2026 1","pages":"e8222875"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13615514/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian respiratory journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/carj/8222875","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The correct use of inhalation devices is essential for achieving adequate control of asthma and COPD; however, critical errors in inhalation technique are frequent and substantially reduce treatment effectiveness. This study's objective was to evaluate the prevalence of inadequate inhalation technique among patients with asthma and COPD and to identify the most common critical errors and the factors associated with incorrect use.

Methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 575 patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with asthma and/or COPD, recruited from a university hospital outpatient pulmonology clinic and a public specialized pharmacy (Natal, Brazil). Participants completed sociodemographic questionnaires and demonstrated their inhaler technique, which was assessed using device-specific checklists to identify critical errors. Factors associated with critical errors were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Only 8.2% of participants correctly performed all steps of the inhalation technique. At least one critical error was observed in 73.4% of the cohort. In multivariable analysis, advanced age (OR: 1.029; 95% CI: 1.016-1.044), use of multiple devices (OR: 2.500; 95% CI: 1.754-3.562), and type of mechanism independent of inspiration (OR: 0.262; 95% CI: 0.160-0.430; protective factor) were significantly associated with critical errors (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Inadequate inhalation technique, particularly the occurrence of critical errors, was highly prevalent, especially among older patients and those using multiple devices. Inhalers dependent on inspiratory effort demonstrated greater vulnerability to incorrect use.

哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入器技术的严重错误:一项真实世界环境下的横断面研究。
背景:正确使用吸入装置对于充分控制哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病至关重要;然而,吸入技术的严重错误是经常发生的,大大降低了治疗效果。本研究的目的是评估哮喘和慢性阻塞性肺病患者吸入技术不足的患病率,并确定最常见的严重错误和与不正确使用相关的因素。方法:这项横断面观察性研究包括575例哮喘和/或COPD患者(年龄≥18岁),从大学医院门诊肺科诊所和公共专业药房(巴西纳塔尔)招募。参与者完成了社会人口调查问卷,并展示了他们的吸入器技术,使用特定设备的检查清单进行评估,以确定关键错误。使用多变量逻辑回归分析与临界误差相关的因素。结果:只有8.2%的参与者正确地完成了吸入技术的所有步骤。在73.4%的队列中至少观察到一个严重错误。在多变量分析中,高龄(OR: 1.029; 95% CI: 1.016-1.044)、使用多种器械(OR: 2.500; 95% CI: 1.754-3.562)和与激励无关的机制类型(OR: 0.262; 95% CI: 0.160-0.430;保护因素)与临界误差显著相关(p < 0.001)。结论:吸入技术不充分,特别是严重错误的发生,非常普遍,特别是在老年患者和使用多种设备的患者中。依赖吸气力的吸入器更容易被错误使用。
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
Canadian respiratory journal
Canadian respiratory journal 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Canadian Respiratory Journal is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that aims to provide a multidisciplinary forum for research in all areas of respiratory medicine. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to asthma, allergy, COPD, non-invasive ventilation, therapeutic intervention, lung cancer, airway and lung infections, as well as any other respiratory diseases.
×
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