4.7 Article

Development of the asthma control test: A survey for assessing asthma control

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2003.09.008

关键词

asthma; questionnaires; outcomes research; patient care management; screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Asthma guidelines indicate that the goal of treatment should be optimum asthma control. In a busy clinic practice with limited time and resources, there is need for a simple method for assessing asthma control with or without lung function testing. Objectives: The objective of this article was to describe the development of the Asthma Control Test (ACT), a patient-based tool for identifying patients with poorly controlled asthma. Methods: A 22-item survey was administered to 471 patients with asthma in the offices of asthma specialists. The specialist's rating of asthma control after spirometry was also collected. Stepwise regression methods were used to select a subset of items that showed the greatest discriminant validity in relation to the specialist's rating of asthma control. Internal consistency reliability was computed, and discriminant validity tests were conducted for ACT scale scores. The performance of ACT was investigated by using logistic regression methods and receiver operating characteristic analyses. Results: Five items were selected from regression analyses. The internal consistency reliability of the 5-itern ACT scale was 0.84. ACT scale scores discriminated between groups of patients differing in the specialist's rating of asthma control IF = 34.5, P <.00001), the need for change in patient's therapy (F = 40.3, P <.00001), and percent predicted FEV1 (F = 4.3, P =.0052). As a screening tool, the overall agreement between ACT and the specialist's rating ranged from 71 % to 78 % depending on the cut points used, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77. Conclusion: Results reinforce the usefulness of a brief, easy to administer, patient-based index of asthma control.

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

4.7
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