↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Differences in the use of spirometry between rural and urban primary care centers in Spain

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Differences in the use of spirometry between rural and urban primary care centers in Spain
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/copd.s86074
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduardo Márquez-Martín, Joan B Soriano, Myriam Calle Rubio, Jose Luis Lopez-Campos

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the ability and practice of spirometry, training of technicians, and spirometry features in primary care centers in Spain, evaluating those located in a rural environment against those in urban areas. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in 2012 by a telephone survey in 970 primary health care centers in Spain. The centers were divided into rural or urban depending on the catchment population. The survey contacted technicians in charge of spirometry and consisted of 36 questions related to the test that included the following topics: center resources, training doctors and technicians, using the spirometer, bronchodilator test, and the availability of spirometry and maintenance. Although the sample size was achieved in both settings, rural centers (RCs) gave a lower response rate than urban centers (UCs). The number of centers without spirometry in rural areas doubled those in the urban areas. Most centers had between one and two spirometers. However, the number of spirometry tests per week was significantly lower in RCs than in UCs (4 [4.1%] vs 6.9 [5.7%], P<0.01). The availability of a specific schedule for conducting spirometries was higher in RCs than in UCs (209 [73.0%] vs 207 [64.2%], P=0.003). RCs were more satisfied with the spirometries (7.8 vs 7.6, P=0.019) and received more training course for interpreting spirometry (41.0% vs 33.2%, P=0.004). The performance of the bronchodilator test showed a homogeneous measure in different ways. The spirometer type and the reference values were unknown to the majority of respondents. This study shows the differences between primary care RCs and UCs in Spain in terms of performing spirometry. The findings in the present study can be used to improve the performance of spirometry in these areas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Researcher 4 10%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 25%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#2,078
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,331
of 276,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#71
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.