Suppr超能文献

一种简易哮喘控制筛查工具在社区药房的应用:横断面及前瞻性纵向分析

Performance of a brief asthma control screening tool in community pharmacy: a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal analysis.

作者信息

LeMay Kate S, Armour Carol L, Reddel Helen K

机构信息

Woolcock Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Prim Care Respir J. 2014 Mar;23(1):79-84. doi: 10.4104/pcrj.2014.00011.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend basing asthma management on assessment of asthma control. Validated control tools, while suitable for clinical research, may not be feasible for routine use in primary care.

AIMS

To describe the performance of the Pharmacy Asthma Control Screening tool (PACS) compared with the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-6).

METHODS

Data were obtained from a multicentre study of a community pharmacy asthma management programme in Australia, with three or four visits over six months. Eligible participants had suboptimal asthma control or no recent visit to their doctor for asthma. Asthma control was assessed at baseline and at six months with the PACS tool and ACQ-6.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients were enrolled and 398 (70%) completed the programme. The average ACQ-6 score was 1.58±1.05 at baseline and 0.96±0.88 (n=392) after six months. Sensitivity and specificity of PACS 'poor control' for not well-controlled asthma (ACQ- 6 >1.0) were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively, at baseline and 0.76 and 0.83 at six months. Agreement between the two tools at six months was moderate (κ=0.54). Both tools showed highly significant change during the study (p<0.0001 for each), but agreement between the change in the two tools was only fair (κ=0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that a simple asthma control screening tool is feasible for use in community pharmacies and has good sensitivity for identifying patients with not well-controlled asthma. Screening tools are useful in primary care to identify patients who require more detailed assessment of their asthma status, whereas for monitoring asthma control over time, a continuous control measure is more appropriate.

摘要

背景

指南建议根据哮喘控制评估来进行哮喘管理。经过验证的控制工具虽然适用于临床研究,但在初级保健的常规使用中可能不可行。

目的

描述药房哮喘控制筛查工具(PACS)与哮喘控制问卷(ACQ - 6)相比的性能。

方法

数据来自澳大利亚一项社区药房哮喘管理项目的多中心研究,在六个月内进行三到四次访视。符合条件的参与者哮喘控制不佳或近期未因哮喘就诊。在基线和六个月时使用PACS工具和ACQ - 6评估哮喘控制情况。

结果

共招募了570名患者,398名(70%)完成了该项目。基线时ACQ - 6的平均得分为1.58±1.05,六个月后为0.96±0.88(n = 392)。对于未得到良好控制的哮喘(ACQ - 6>1.0),PACS“控制不佳”的敏感性和特异性在基线时分别为0.92和0.66,六个月时分别为0.76和0.83。六个月时两种工具之间的一致性为中等(κ = 0.54)。两种工具在研究期间均显示出高度显著的变化(每种工具p<0.0001),但两种工具变化之间的一致性仅为一般(κ = 0.31)。

结论

本研究表明,一种简单的哮喘控制筛查工具在社区药房中使用是可行的,并且在识别哮喘控制不佳的患者方面具有良好的敏感性。筛查工具在初级保健中有助于识别需要对其哮喘状况进行更详细评估的患者,而对于长期监测哮喘控制情况,连续控制测量更为合适。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f2e7/6442279/f9996ca91c4c/pcrj201411-f1.jpg

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