Suppr超能文献

急性哮喘自我管理实践知识评估

Assessment of practical knowledge of self-management of acute asthma.

作者信息

Kolbe J, Vamos M, James F, Elkind G, Garrett J

机构信息

Department of Respiratory Medicine, Green Lane Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.

出版信息

Chest. 1996 Jan;109(1):86-90. doi: 10.1378/chest.109.1.86.

Abstract

AIMS

To develop an instrument for the measurement of, and to determine the level of, practical knowledge of self-management of acute asthma.

METHODS

Eighty patients with moderate/severe asthma attending a hospital-based asthma clinic responded to an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Subjects were asked to describe the action they would take in response to each of two hypothetical evolving attacks: (1) one of gradually increasing severity and (2) the other developing rapidly. Responses were scored according to the appropriateness of actions taken relevant to the stage of the attack. Transcripts of the responses were scored independently by three of the investigators according to a system based on Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) and British Thoracic Society (BTS) consensus statements on asthma management. A 25-point scale was used on which 0 represented a total lack of appropriate responses and a score of 25 was an optimal response.

RESULTS

Interrater and intrarater reliability were excellent. Mean (+/- SD) scores for the slow and rapid onset attacks were 12.8 +/- 4.0 and 13.9 +/- 4.8, respectively. The scores for the two scenarios were predicted by each other (p = 0.002) and by the interviewer's rating of asthma management knowledge (p = 0.0004, p = 0.0001), but not by age, sex, race, previous asthma morbidity, depression, or anxiety. In both scenarios, most patients indicated that they would increase inhaled beta-agonist (85% for slow-onset scenarios and 94% for rapid-onset scenarios, respectively) and use their action plan and/or seek urgent medical advice at an appropriate time (74% and 70%). Although some would measure peak expiratory flow (PEF) initially (54% and 30%), only a minority would continue to monitor PEF in the context of worsening acute asthma (30% and 24%). When a severe life-threatening situation was described, only 50% and 64%, respectively, indicated that they would call emergency services.

CONCLUSIONS

Scenarios describing hypothetical asthma attacks are a useful and reproducible method of assessing practical knowledge of self-management of acute asthma. Patients presented with scenarios frequently made errors in their hypothetical responses. The errors made with scenarios, which parallel errors reported in real clinical situations, occurred despite the fact that this patient population had received considerable education and training about how to manage asthma. Most indicated they would not monitor PEF even in an exacerbation of asthma and would not call emergency services despite life-threatening asthma. These scenarios may allow us to explore the gap between knowledge about treatment and actual practice, and perhaps to help close that gap and thus reduce asthma morbidity and mortality.

摘要

目的

开发一种用于测量急性哮喘自我管理实践知识并确定其水平的工具。

方法

80名中度/重度哮喘患者在一家医院的哮喘诊所接受了由访谈者管理的问卷调查。受试者被要求描述他们针对两种假设的不断发展的发作情况(1)一种严重程度逐渐增加;(2)另一种迅速发展,会采取的行动。根据与发作阶段相关的所采取行动的适当性对回答进行评分。三位研究人员根据基于澳大利亚和新西兰胸科学会(TSANZ)以及英国胸科学会(BTS)关于哮喘管理的共识声明的系统,对回答的文字记录进行独立评分。使用了一个25分制,其中0分表示完全缺乏适当反应,25分表示最佳反应。

结果

评分者间和评分者内的信度都非常好。缓慢发作和快速发作的平均(±标准差)得分分别为12.8±4.0和13.9±4.8。两种情况的得分相互预测(p = 0.002),并且由访谈者对哮喘管理知识的评分预测(p = 0.0004,p = 0.0001),但不受年龄、性别、种族、既往哮喘发病率、抑郁或焦虑的影响。在两种情况下,大多数患者表示他们会增加吸入β-激动剂(缓慢发作情况中分别为85%,快速发作情况中为94%),并在适当的时候使用他们的行动计划和/或寻求紧急医疗建议(分别为74%和70%)。尽管有些人最初会测量呼气峰值流速(PEF)(分别为54%和30%),但只有少数人会在急性哮喘恶化的情况下继续监测PEF(分别为30%和24%)。当描述一种严重危及生命的情况时,分别只有50%和64%的人表示他们会呼叫急救服务。

结论

描述假设性哮喘发作的情况是评估急性哮喘自我管理实践知识的一种有用且可重复的方法。面对这些情况的患者在他们的假设性回答中经常出错。这些情况中出现的错误与实际临床情况中报告的错误相似,尽管该患者群体已经接受了关于如何管理哮喘的大量教育和培训。大多数人表示即使在哮喘加重时他们也不会监测PEF,并且即使在哮喘危及生命时也不会呼叫急救服务。这些情况可能使我们能够探索治疗知识与实际实践之间的差距,也许有助于缩小这一差距,从而降低哮喘的发病率和死亡率。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验