The Global Usability Score: A Novel Comprehensive Tool for Assessing, Ranking, and Compare Usability of Inhalers in Patients Requiring Airway Treatments

W. DalNegroRoberto, Turco Paola, M. Povero
{"title":"The Global Usability Score: A Novel Comprehensive Tool for Assessing, Ranking, and Compare Usability of Inhalers in Patients Requiring Airway Treatments","authors":"W. DalNegroRoberto, Turco Paola, M. Povero","doi":"10.4172/2161-105X.1000401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: The inhalation route is the best choice for respiratory drug delivery, but benefits to patients are \n strictly related to the proper use of inhalers. The role of patients’ view point (such as: their intuitivity, preference, \n acceptance, and satisfaction) were extensively investigated, even if other factors, unrelated to their personal beliefs, \n can further affect inhaler usability. \nAim: to define a specific tool for easily assessing, ranking, and comparing the real usability of whatever inhaler by \n a single, comprehensive score, also based on objective measurements. \nMethods: A specific, anonymous questionnaire was validated. The Questionnaire consists of four main sections \n (Introductory; Assessing Track; Global Score calculation, Patient’s personal data). Questions are twenty-seven, \n all scored: twenty-two addressed to the patient, and five to the expert nurse, who has to conduct the independent \n assessments. The sum of the eight sub-scores of the Assessing Track will represent the final Global Usability Score- \n GUS, which ranges 0-50 points for each inhaler; higher the GUS value, higher the real usability will be. \nResults: the comprehension of all questions at their first reading was >97% in the final version of the GUS \n Questionnaire, for both patients and nurses participating to the questionnaire development. \nDiscussion: usability of inhalers is a complex and multifaceted issue. When assessing usability, it should be taken \n into account that the role of patients’ beliefs differently integrates the role of other objective determinants which are \n unrelated to the sole patients’ viewpoint. Terms like intuitivity, preference, acceptability, or satisfaction should not be \n used as synonyms for usability, because too related to the patients’ subjectivity only. \nConclusions: the Global Usability Score represents the first comprehensive score for assessing, ranking, and \n comparing objectively the contribution of all main components of inhaler usability, and then provide an effective and \n motivated standard of choice.","PeriodicalId":90449,"journal":{"name":"Austin journal of pulmonary and respiratory medicine","volume":"63 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Austin journal of pulmonary and respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-105X.1000401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Introduction: The inhalation route is the best choice for respiratory drug delivery, but benefits to patients are strictly related to the proper use of inhalers. The role of patients’ view point (such as: their intuitivity, preference, acceptance, and satisfaction) were extensively investigated, even if other factors, unrelated to their personal beliefs, can further affect inhaler usability. Aim: to define a specific tool for easily assessing, ranking, and comparing the real usability of whatever inhaler by a single, comprehensive score, also based on objective measurements. Methods: A specific, anonymous questionnaire was validated. The Questionnaire consists of four main sections (Introductory; Assessing Track; Global Score calculation, Patient’s personal data). Questions are twenty-seven, all scored: twenty-two addressed to the patient, and five to the expert nurse, who has to conduct the independent assessments. The sum of the eight sub-scores of the Assessing Track will represent the final Global Usability Score- GUS, which ranges 0-50 points for each inhaler; higher the GUS value, higher the real usability will be. Results: the comprehension of all questions at their first reading was >97% in the final version of the GUS Questionnaire, for both patients and nurses participating to the questionnaire development. Discussion: usability of inhalers is a complex and multifaceted issue. When assessing usability, it should be taken into account that the role of patients’ beliefs differently integrates the role of other objective determinants which are unrelated to the sole patients’ viewpoint. Terms like intuitivity, preference, acceptability, or satisfaction should not be used as synonyms for usability, because too related to the patients’ subjectivity only. Conclusions: the Global Usability Score represents the first comprehensive score for assessing, ranking, and comparing objectively the contribution of all main components of inhaler usability, and then provide an effective and motivated standard of choice.
全球可用性评分:一种用于评估、排名和比较需要气道治疗的患者吸入器可用性的新型综合工具
吸入途径是呼吸道给药的最佳选择,但对患者的益处与正确使用吸入器严格相关。患者的观点(例如:他们的直觉、偏好、接受度和满意度)的作用被广泛调查,即使与他们的个人信仰无关的其他因素也会进一步影响吸入器的可用性。目的:定义一个特定的工具,通过一个单一的综合评分,也基于客观测量,轻松评估、排名和比较任何吸入器的实际可用性。方法:采用一份特定的匿名问卷进行验证。问卷由四个主要部分组成(导论;评估跟踪;全球评分计算,患者个人数据)。问题共有27个,全部得分:22个给病人,5个给专业护士,他们必须进行独立的评估。评估轨道的八个子分数的总和将代表最终的全球可用性分数- GUS,每个吸入器的范围为0-50分;GUS值越高,实际可用性越高。结果:参与问卷编制的患者和护士在最终版GUS问卷中,对所有问题的一读理解度均>97%。讨论:吸入器的可用性是一个复杂和多方面的问题。在评估可用性时,应考虑到患者信念的作用不同地整合了其他客观决定因素的作用,这些决定因素与唯一的患者观点无关。像直观性、偏好、可接受性或满意度这样的术语不应该被用作可用性的同义词,因为它们只与患者的主观性相关。结论:全球可用性评分代表了评估、排名和客观比较吸入器可用性所有主要成分的贡献的第一个综合评分,然后提供了一个有效的和有动机的选择标准。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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