| Title |
A Review of Electronic Devices to Assess Inhaler Technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11882-017-0684-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Delesha M. Carpenter, Courtney A. Roberts, Adam J. Sage, Johnson George, Robert Horne |
| Abstract |
Multiple electronic devices exist that provide feedback on the accuracy of patient inhaler technique. Our purpose is to describe the inhaler technique feedback provided by these devices, including specific technique steps measured, how feedback is displayed, target of feedback (patient, provider, researcher), and compatibility with inhaler type (metered-dose inhaler [MDI], diskus, etc.). We identified eight devices that provide feedback on inhaler technique. Only one device assessed all evidence-based MDI technique steps. Most devices provide limited real-time feedback to patients, if any feedback at all. Technologies to assess inhaler technique are advancing and hold great potential for improving patient inhaler technique. Many devices are limited in their ability to detect all evidence-based technique steps and provide real-time user-friendly feedback to patients and providers. Usability tests with patients and providers could identify ways to improve these devices to improve their utility in clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 8 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 28 March 2021.
All research outputs
#2,490,705
of 24,801,176 outputs
Outputs from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#99
of 851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,004
of 313,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,801,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 313,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.