↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The economic impact of educational training assessed by the Handling Questionnaire with three inhalation devices in asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s104066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roberto W Dal Negro, Massimiliano Povero

Abstract

The usability of inhalation devices depends on several factors, eg, the drug to inhale, device handling, and patients' training. Usability is then presumed to have economic consequences. To assess and compare the cost of patients' training for proper usability of Breezhaler and Genuair (both dry powder inhalers) and Respimat (a soft mist inhaler) in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) outpatients. The acceptance and handling of the three devices were investigated by means of the Handling Questionnaire. The time spent in specific training for ensuring a proper actuation and the corresponding costs were also calculated. Linear and logistic regressions were used in order to investigate the factors influencing proper handling of the devices. A significance level of P<0.05 was accepted. According to both the patients' and the nurse's judgments, Genuair and Respimat were perceived as the easiest devices to use, while Breezhaler required the highest number of attempts for achieving the first proper actuation (2.6 vs 1.6; P<0.0001). The total training cost per patient (including the nurse's time for demonstration and that for attending the patients' maneuvers) was €1.38±€1.21. Breezhaler was found to be the most expensive as the cost per patient was €2.35±€1.26, which was three to four times higher than that of Genuair and Respimat (both devices involved a cost of <€1 per patient, with negligible differences between each other). Asthma and COPD patients showed a similar trend, with better outcomes reported for asthma patients probably due to lower age. Substantial differences were found to exist in patients' acceptability and handling of the three devices. The economic impact of specific training was also different and strictly related to the comprehension of the procedure for actuation of each device. Respimat as a soft mist inhaler and Genuair as an metered-dose inhaler proved to be the most convenient in economic terms also.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Other 4 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 5 25%
Unknown 3 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 November 2018.
All research outputs
#6,959,709
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#138
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,235
of 312,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 312,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.