Sam Howard
What are the pros and cons of electronically monitoring inhaler use in asthma? A multistakeholder perspective
Howard, Sam; Lang, Alexandra. R.; Sharples, Sarah; Shaw, Dominick E.
Authors
ALEXANDRA LANG Alexandra.Lang@nottingham.ac.uk
Assistant Professor
SARAH SHARPLES SARAH.SHARPLES@NOTTINGHAM.AC.UK
Professor of Human Factors
Dominick E. Shaw
Abstract
Introduction
Electronic monitoring devices (EMDs) are the optimal method for collecting objective data on inhaler use in asthma. Recent research has investigated the attitudes of patients with asthma towards these devices. However, no research to date has formally considered the opinions of stakeholders and decision-makers in asthma care. These individuals have important clinical requirements that need to be taken into account if EMDs are to be successfully provisioned, making collecting their opinions on the key barriers facing these devices a valuable process.
Methods
Three rounds of surveys in a Delphi format were used to assess the most important pros and cons of EMDs for asthma care in a sample of 31 stakeholders which included healthcare professionals and members of clinical commissioning groups.
Results
The respondents identified 29 pros and 32 cons. Pros that were rated as most important included new visual evidence to aid clinical discussions with a patient and an increase in patient involvement and motivation. The cons that were rated as most important included a need for more clinical evidence of the effectiveness of EMDs, as well as better clarity over who has responsibilities in managing, interpreting and discussing data with a patient.
Conclusions
The research provides a guide for EMD developers by highlighting where these devices may provide the most benefit as well as prioritising the key issues that need addressing if they are to be used effectively in everyday asthma care.
Citation
Howard, S., Lang, A. R., Sharples, S., & Shaw, D. E. (in press). What are the pros and cons of electronically monitoring inhaler use in asthma? A multistakeholder perspective. BMJ Open Respiratory Research, 3(1), Article e000159. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Nov 5, 2016 |
Online Publication Date | Nov 29, 2016 |
Deposit Date | Jan 13, 2017 |
Publicly Available Date | Mar 29, 2024 |
Journal | BMJ Open Respiratory Research |
Electronic ISSN | 2052-4439 |
Publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 3 |
Issue | 1 |
Article Number | e000159 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159 |
Public URL | https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/826615 |
Publisher URL | http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000159 |
Files
Asthma e000159.full.pdf
(901 Kb)
PDF
Copyright Statement
Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
You might also like
Reflections on RRI in “TAS for Health at Home”
(2022)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Repository@Nottingham
Administrator e-mail: digital-library-support@nottingham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search