Dataset Information

Perceptions of asthma control in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study comparing patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of asthma control with validated ACT scores.

ABSTRACT: Perceptions of asthma control often vary between patients and physicians. This cross-sectional survey provided UK-specific data on actual and perceived asthma control in patients (18-75 years) attending routine asthma reviews in primary, secondary and tertiary settings. Differences between healthcare professionals' (HCP) and patients' perceptions of asthma control were evaluated via an online questionnaire and compared to a control-the validated asthma control test (ACT)-which patients completed. Treated patients (at least a short acting ß-agonist) with a documented diagnosis of asthma were enroled and consented within a month of their last appointment. Patients were grouped according to the British Thoracic Society (BTS)/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 2014 treatment guidelines (BTS/SIGN steps 1-5). A total of 260 patients were screened: 234 were eligible for enrolment: 33, 52, 50, 49 and 50 patients in steps 1-5, respectively. Seventy per cent (164) were women. The percentage of patients aged 45-64 years was 47.4%. HCPs classed 70% (164) as non-smokers. 84.2% of patients and 73.9% of HCPs perceived that asthma was controlled but ACT results suggest that asthma was only controlled in 54.7% of patients (ACT score ≥20). Patients in steps 4 and 5 had the highest levels of uncontrolled asthma. Correct agreement between ACT score with perceptions of controlled or uncontrolled asthma occurred in 67.9% of patients and 68.8% of HCPs; the poorest levels of agreement occurred in patients in steps 4 and 5. Uncontrolled asthma is common in UK patients. High proportions of patients and HCPs have incorrect perceptions of asthma control, especially in relation to patients with asthma in steps 4 and 5.MISPERCEPTIONS OF CONTROL ABOUND AMONG UK PATIENTS AND DOCTORS: Asthma patients and their doctors often misperceive whether the disease is under control, according to a British study. Andrew Menzies-Gow from Royal Brompton Hospital in London and Gavin Chiu from Boehringer Ingelheim UK in Bracknell used an online questionnaire to assess perceptions of asthma control among 234 patients and their healthcare providers. All participants had at least intermittent asthma that required occasional treatment; many had more severe disease. The researchers found that 84% of patients and 74% of doctors thought the asthma was well controlled, but results of the Asthma Control Test indicated only 55% of patients objectively achieved disease control. Correct agreement between the validated test and more subjective perceptions occurred in only 68 % of patients and 69% of doctors. Addressing this mismatch could go a long way to improving asthma control among British patients.

SUBMITTER: Menzies-Gow A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5554258 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to assess the adherence to guidelines by practitioners working in the Mediterranean region and to identify the reasons for non-compliance.MethodsA opportunistic self-administered questionnaire was circulated among members of the Mediterranean Group for the Study of Diabetes (MGSD) and regional diabetic associations. The study was limited to the Mediterranean region; 2841 medical practitioners participated in the study. Intervention involved a self-administered questionnaire enabling demographic and personal details to be correlated to relevant information related to practice and continuing health professional education (CHPE) attitudes, perceptions related to diabetes and healthcare systems in the community, and physicians' attitudes to healthcare practices and target goals relevant to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The main outcome measure was adherence to evidence-based guidelines.ResultsWhile the majority of respondents (69.9%) reported being confident in managing these patients, and 79.2% reported being aware of the availability of local guidelines; only a fifth opted to manage patients by strictly targeting an HbA1c value below 6.5%, while 3.3% were happy to maintain an HbA1c value of up to 8.0%. These goals appeared to be tempered by fear of eliciting hypoglycaemia in the belief that patients and their families do not have the skills to manage the complication. Endocrinologists/internists preferred more rigid control.ConclusionIt is clear that the promulgation of evidence-based guidelines cannot assume automatic adoption in clinical practice since adoption is tempered by on-the-ground practice circumstances that make the practitioner reluctant to fully endorse and adopt the targets defined by the guidelines. The evidence-based guidelines need to be modified for local or regional circumstances.FundingThis study and the Rapid Service Fee were supported by a financial grant from the Mediterranean Group for the Study of Diabetes which is supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Servier.

Project description:BackgroundDisease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, the full benefits of DMARDs are often not realized because many patients are sub-optimally adherent to their medication. In order to optimize adherence, it is essential that healthcare professionals (HCPs) understand patients' barriers and facilitators for medication use. Insight in these barriers and facilitators may foster the dialogue about adequate medication use between HCPs and patients. What HCPs perceive as barriers and facilitators has, so far, scarcely been investigated. This study aimed to identify the perceptions of HCPs on patients' barriers and facilitators that might influence their adherence.MethodsThis qualitative study was performed using semi structured in-depth interviews with HCPs. An interview guide was used, based on an adjusted version of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors that influence barriers and facilitators to DMARD use according to HCPs.ResultsFifteen HCPs (5 rheumatologists, 5 nurses and 5 pharmacists) were interviewed. They mentioned a variety of factors that, according to their perceptions, influence DMARD adherence in patients with RA. Besides therapy-related factors, such as (onset of) medication effectiveness and side-effects, most variation was found within patient-related factors and reflected patients' beliefs, ways of coping, and (self-management) skills toward medication and their condition. In addition, factors related to the condition (e.g., level of disease activity), healthcare team and system (e.g., trust in HCP), and social and economic context (e.g. support, work shifts) were reported.ConclusionsThis study provided insights in HCPs' perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to DMARD use patients with RA. Most factors that were mentioned were patient-related and potentially modifiable. When physicians understand patients' perceptions on medication use, adherence to DMARDs can probably be optimized in patients with RA leading to more effectiveness of treatment outcomes.

Project description:Background Interprofessional teams contribute to patient safety during clinical care. However, little is known about how interprofessional teams manage and cope with critical incidents in the emergency department (ED). Therefore, the study aimed to describe healthcare professionals (HCPs) perceptions of critical incidents linked to the enablers of and barriers to interprofessional teamwork in a high-risk setting, the ED. Methods Individual interviews with HCPs regarding events at the ED were held during the period of May 2019–January 2020. The Critical Incident Technique approach was used to guide the interviews and the qualitative analysis. Data were analyzed inductively using qualitative content analysis. Results Interview participants (n = 28) included 7 physicians (25%), 12 registered nurses (43%), 7 nurse assistants (25%) and 2 administrators (7%). Overall, 108 critical incidents were described. Eight categories that described functional and dysfunctional experiences within interprofessional teamwork were identified: salience of reflection; professional experience makes a difference; demanding physical and psychosocial work environment; balancing communication demands; lacking management support, structure, and planning; tensions between professional role and responsibility; different views on interprofessional teamwork; and confidence in interprofessional team members. Conclusion Findings of this study indicate that poor ED-specific communication and limited professional experience are essential factors in handling critical incidents related to interprofessional teamwork. An important aspect of critical incident management is the ergonomics of the physical work environment and how it enables interprofessional teamwork. This study emphasizes the factors enabling interprofessional teamwork to manage critical incidents in the complex working environment of the ED. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-022-01034-0.

Dataset Information

Perceptions of asthma control in the United Kingdom: a cross-sectional study comparing patient and healthcare professionals' perceptions of asthma control with validated ACT scores.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets