↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Factors associated with appropriate inhaler use in patients with COPD – lessons from the REAL survey

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Title
Factors associated with appropriate inhaler use in patients with COPD – lessons from the REAL survey
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, February 2018
DOI 10.2147/copd.s149404
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Price, Dorothy L Keininger, Boomi Viswanad, Matthias Gasser, Susann Walda, Florian S Gutzwiller

Abstract

Nonadherence to medication and incorrect use of inhalers represent significant barriers to optimal disease management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, health care professionals (HCPs) play a critical role in educating their patients on appropriate inhaler use and in ensuring medication adherence. However, many patients do not receive appropriate inhaler training or have not had their inhaler technique checked. The Real-life Experience and Accuracy of inhaLer use (REAL) survey was a computer-assisted, telephonic survey consisting of 23 questions gathering real-world information on correct inhaler use, inhalation technique, device attributes, adherence, dosing accuracy, training, correct device use, ease of use, and factors that influence patient adherence in commercially available inhalers delivering COPD maintenance therapy. All results are based on patient-reported data. The survey was conducted between January 4, 2016 and February 2, 2016. A total of 764 patients using various inhalers (Breezhaler® =186; Ellipta® =191; Genuair® =194; Respimat® =201) with mild to very severe COPD, with a mean ± SD age 56±9.8 years, completed the survey. Patient self-reported adherence was significantly lower in younger patients compared to older patients (p=0.020). Eighty-three percent of patients indicated that a demonstration (in-person) was "very helpful" versus 58% for video. Patient preferences for training methods were as follows: demonstration of inhaler use (83%), video (58%), instructions for use (51%), and leaflet (34%). Twenty-nine percent of patients had not been checked to see if they were using their device correctly by a HCP within the last two years. Patients who were checked were significantly more adherent than unchecked patients (p=0.020). The majority of the patients using Breezhaler reported either being very confident or confident of having taken a full dose, which was higher than those using Genuair, Ellipta (α=0.05), and Respimat (α=0.05). Treatment adherence in the last 30 days was highest with Breezhaler followed by Respimat, Ellipta, and Genuair. The REAL survey identified attributes that influenced patient adherence and optimal inhaler use. Predictive attributes that influence patient adherence which HCPs should be aware of include age and disease severity. Modifiable attributes which the HCP can influence include correct inhaler use training, choice of training methods, checking patient inhaler technique at subsequent visits, and device selection. Inhalers are integral in the effective management of patients with COPD; it is therefore important that patients use the inhaler correctly and have full confidence in the dosage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 171 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 12 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 57 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 10%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Engineering 4 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 63 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,322,424
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#61
of 2,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,695
of 450,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#8
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.