4.1 Article

Patient Knowledge in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Back to Basics

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/15412555.2011.605402

Keywords

Education; knowledge; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; self-management

Funding

  1. Mount Sinai Hospital
  2. Mount Sinai Hospital Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patient education is integral to the care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and a cornerstone of self-management in chronic illness. We aimed to assess information needs and knowledge of patients with COPD. The Lung Information Needs Questionnaire (LINQ) and The Mount Sinai Hospital Questionnaire (MSHQ) were used. The LINQ identifies what COPD information the patient has, or is lacking. Higher scores in the LINQ define a greater information need. The MSHQ assesses a patients' COPD knowledge. Higher scores in the MSHQ questionnaire indicate greater knowledge. Subjects, in (n = 38) and outpatients (n = 43) were aged (mean +/- SD) 69 +/- 9 years, 53% were women, and 36% had not completed high school. COPD was diagnosed 9 +/- 7 years previously. Forty percent had recalled receiving specific COPD education. Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 1.1 +/- 0.6 Liters. Patients on average had a 29 +/- 14% need for information as assessed by the LINQ. Patients indicated a 52 +/- 34% need for information on diet and 43 +/- 25% for self-management. The mean total score for the MSHQ was 71 +/- 13%. The score on treatment was 76 +/- 20% and 60 +/- 14% on pathophysiology. There was a positive relationship between having prior COPD education, finishing high school and total MSHQ score (p < 0.05) and a positive correlation of prior COPD education and reduced LINQ total score (p < 0.01). Patients with COPD have received information and demonstrate some knowledge about their disease. However, there remains a need for more education on diet and self-management.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available