↓ Skip to main content

Interventions to improve inhaler technique for people with asthma

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
75 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
206 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions to improve inhaler technique for people with asthma
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012286.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca Normansell, Kayleigh M Kew, Alexander G Mathioudakis

Abstract

Asthma is a common chronic disease worldwide. Inhalers are often prescribed to help control asthma symptoms, improve quality of life and reduce the risk of exacerbations or flare-ups. However, evidence suggests that many people with asthma do not use their inhaler correctly. It is therefore important to evaluate whether interventions aimed specifically at improving technique are effective and safe, and whether use of these interventions translates into improved clinical outcomes. To assess the impact of interventions to improve inhaler technique on clinical outcomes and safety in adults and children with asthma. We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains records compiled from multiple electronic and handsearched resources. We also searched trial registries and reference lists of primary studies. We conducted the most recent search on 23 November 2016. We included studies comparing a group of adults or children with asthma receiving an inhaler technique intervention versus a group receiving a control or alternative intervention. We included parallel and cluster-randomised trials of any duration conducted in any setting, and planned to include only the first phase of any cross-over trials identified. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. Two review authors screened the search results for eligible studies. We extracted outcome data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate and resolved discrepancies by involving another review author. We grouped studies making similar comparisons by consensus (e.g. all those comparing enhanced inhaler technique education vs usual care) and conducted meta-analyses only if treatments, participants and the underlying clinical question were similar enough for pooling to make sense. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios, and continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences, all with random-effects models. We described skewed data narratively. We graded the results and presented evidence in 'Summary of findings' tables for each comparison. Primary outcomes were inhaler technique, asthma control and exacerbations requiring at least oral corticosteroids (OCS). This review includes 29 parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2210), although not all reported relevant or useable data. All participants had asthma, and follow-up ranged from 2 to 26 weeks. Most studies were at low or unclear risk of selection and attrition biases and at high risk for biases associated with blinding. We considered most of the evidence to be of low quality owing to these biases and to imprecision in the estimates of effect.We classified studies into three comparisons: enhanced face-to-face training session(s), multi-media-delivered inhaler training (e.g. DVD, computer app or game) and technique feedback devices. Differences between interventions, populations and outcome measures limited quantitative analyses, particularly for exacerbations, adverse events, unscheduled visits to a healthcare provider and absenteeism from work or school.Enhanced inhaler technique education and multi-media training improved technique in most studies immediately after the intervention and at follow-up, although the variety of checklists used meant that this was difficult to assess reliably. For both adults and children, how and when inhaler technique was assessed appeared to affect whether inhaler technique improved and by how much.Analyses of the numbers of people who demonstrated correct or 'good enough' technique were generally more useful than checklist scores. Adult studies of enhanced education showed benefit when this metric was used at 2 to 26 weeks' follow-up (odds ratio (OR) 5.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 13.65; 258 participants; three studies; 31 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 69 (95% CI 45 to 86) in the education group; moderate-quality evidence). A similar result was seen in studies looking at feedback devices at four weeks' follow-up (OR 4.80, 95% CI 1.87 to 12.33; 97 participants; one study; 51 per 100 with correct technique in the control group compared with 83 (95% CI 66 to 93) in the feedback group; low-quality evidence). However, the benefit of multi-media training for adults even immediately after the intervention was uncertain (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.50; 164 participants; two studies; I² = 49%; 30 per 100 in the control group with correct technique compared with 47 (95% CI 26 to 70) in the multi-media group; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence tended to be less clear for children, usually because results were based on fewer and smaller studies.Some studies did not report exacerbations in a way that allowed meta-analysis; others provided inconclusive results. Inhaler technique interventions provided some benefit for asthma control and quality of life but generally did not lead to consistent or important clinical benefits for adults or children. Confidence intervals included no difference or did not reach a threshold that could be considered clinically important. Responder analyses sometimes showed improvement among more people in the intervention groups, even though the mean difference between groups was small. We found no evidence about harms. Although interventions to improve inhaler technique may work in some circumstances, the variety of interventions and measurement methods used hampered our ability to perform meta-analyses and led to low to moderate confidence in our findings. Most included studies did not report important improvement in clinical outcomes. Guidelines consistently recommend that clinicians check regularly the inhaler technique of their patients; what is not clear is how clinicians can most effectively intervene if they find a patient's technique to be inadequate, and whether such interventions will have a discernible impact on clinical outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 205 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Bachelor 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 42 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Psychology 9 4%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 48 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#354,496
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,034
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,448
of 257,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 257,417 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.