4.5 Article

Inhaler competence in asthma: Common errors, barriers to use and recommended solutions

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 107, Issue 1, Pages 37-46

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2012.09.017

Keywords

Asthma; Inhalers; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Funding

  1. Australian Commonwealth Government Department of Health
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Boehringer Ingelheim
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Meda
  7. Nycomed
  8. Teva
  9. UCB
  10. UK MRC
  11. Sixth EU Framework program for research [FOOD-CT-2004-506378]
  12. Abdi Ibrahim
  13. Almirall
  14. Chiesi
  15. Innovata Biomed
  16. Mundipharma
  17. Orion
  18. Sandoz
  19. Truddell
  20. EPSRC
  21. MRC
  22. UK National Health Service
  23. Aerocrine
  24. Cipla
  25. Merck
  26. Novartis
  27. Pfizer
  28. National Institutes of Health (US)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whilst the inhaled route is the first line administration method in the management of asthma, it is well documented that patients can have problems adopting the correct inhaler technique and thus receiving adequate medication. This applies equally to metered dose inhalers and dry powder inhalers and leads to poor disease control and increased healthcare costs. Reviews have highlighted these problems and the recent European Consensus Statement developed a call to action to seek solutions. This review takes forward the challenge of inhaler competence by highlighting the issues and suggesting potential solutions to these problems. The opportunity for technological innovation and educational interventions to reduce errors is highlighted, as well as the specific challenges faced by children. This review is intended as a policy document, as most issues faced by patients have not changed for half a century, and this situation should not be allowed to continue any longer. Future direction with respect to research, policy needs and practice, together with education requirements in inhaler technique are described. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available