4.5 Article

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

期刊

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
卷 107, 期 1, 页码 37-46

出版社

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

关键词

Asthma; Inhalers; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

资金

  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)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据