Suppr超能文献

哮喘指南:医生理解与实践的评估

Asthma guidelines: an assessment of physician understanding and practice.

作者信息

Doerschug K C, Peterson M W, Dayton C S, Kline J N

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Occupational Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Jun;159(6):1735-41. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.159.6.9809051.

Abstract

In 1997 the NHLBI updated guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. We hypothesized that not all components of the updated guidelines are well understood by the physicians who care for asthmatics. To develop appropriate educational interventions that address areas of physician misunderstanding, it is important to identify these components. Based upon NHLBI guidelines, we developed a multiple-choice test of asthma knowledge that was distributed to physicians at the University of Iowa; 108 physicians completed the test, including 20 asthma specialists, 11 asthma specialty fellows, 11 General Medicine faculty, five Family Medicine faculty, 51 Internal Medicine residents, and five Family Medicine residents. The mean correct total score for all physicians was 60 +/- 2% (mean +/- SEM). Asthma specialists scored higher in total score and in pharmacology and prevention. However, no group performed well on estimating disease severity. We further identified deficits in the use of spirometry and anti-inflammatory agents in caring for asthmatic patients. Thus, deficits exist in physician understanding and implementation of the NHLBI guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma. By identifying specific areas of misunderstanding, we can design better educational interventions. Clearly, educational programs should emphasize new models for estimating chronic disease severity.

摘要

1997年,美国国立心肺血液研究所(NHLBI)更新了哮喘诊断和管理指南。我们推测,并非所有照顾哮喘患者的医生都能很好地理解更新指南的所有内容。为了制定针对医生误解领域的适当教育干预措施,识别这些内容很重要。根据NHLBI指南,我们编制了一份哮喘知识多项选择题测试,并分发给爱荷华大学的医生;108名医生完成了测试,其中包括20名哮喘专家、11名哮喘专科研究员、11名普通内科教员、5名家庭医学教员、51名内科住院医师和5名家庭医学住院医师。所有医生的平均正确总分是60±2%(平均值±标准误)。哮喘专家在总分、药理学和预防方面得分更高。然而,在评估疾病严重程度方面,没有一个组表现出色。我们还发现,在照顾哮喘患者时,医生在使用肺活量测定法和抗炎药物方面存在不足。因此,医生在理解和实施NHLBI哮喘诊断和管理指南方面存在不足。通过识别具体的误解领域,我们可以设计更好的教育干预措施。显然,教育项目应强调评估慢性病严重程度的新模式。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验