MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do healthcare professionals think that dry powder inhalers can be used interchangeably?

2005· review· en· W1513729670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Price

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Clinical Practice · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInhalerDry-powder inhalerPharmacistMedical prescriptionFamily medicineHealth professionalsHealth carePharmacyConfusionAsthmaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important to assess the attitudes of healthcare professionals to the interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers, as there is the potential for this to occur more frequently in the future. A survey of healthcare professionals in the UK found that 87% were concerned about potential problems arising from prescriptions that do not specify the device to be dispensed, and 46% were aware of actual incidents in which patients received an unfamiliar inhaler, including patient confusion, ineffective inhaler technique and the need to reissue prescriptions. In another survey conducted among 427 primary and secondary care physicians in Germany, Netherlands, UK and USA, one third of the physicians considered the device before considering the chemical entity within a class of treatments and over half the respondents reported problems with the device as one of the main reasons for switching inhaled therapy. In a survey conducted in Australia, Canada, France, Germany and UK, over 90% of the 726 physicians interviewed thought that interchangeable use of dry powder inhalers would have a negative impact on patient compliance and device handling and on willingness to use the inhaler if the patient was not involved in the choice. In total, 79% of physicians thought that substitution of a patient's regular dry powder inhaler with another could have a negative impact on asthma control. The majority of physicians (95%) were opposed to substitution of one dry powder inhaler for another if the pharmacist does not consult the patient or physician. A majority (86%) were concerned that switching between dry powder inhalers would have an adverse impact on workload. Only 9% of physicians thought that dry powder inhalers were interchangeable, with almost eight out of 10 (79%) considering that there should be official recognition that they are not interchangeable. In conclusion, a number of surveys among healthcare professionals have shown that they believe patient involvement in treatment choice to be essential for adherence to therapy. Dry powder inhalers were perceived as different and not interchangeable, with physicians opposed to substitution of one dry powder inhaler by another without consultation with the patient or physician. Consequently, physicians are in favour of official recognition that dry powder inhalers are not interchangeable, with any cost benefits likely to be outweighed by the need for additional consultations and prescriptions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Clinical PracticeSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207