Physicians' Knowledge of Inhaler Devices and Inhalation Techniques Remains Poor in Spain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies in many countries in the 1990s revealed deficiencies in physicians' knowledge about inhalation therapy. In an attempt to remedy this situation, Spanish scientific societies implemented a variety of educational strategies. The objective of the present study was to assess changes in attitudes and knowledge about inhalers and inhalation techniques in a sizable sample of physicians. METHODS: An 11-question multiple choice test was developed and administered throughout Spain to practicing physicians from specialties that frequently prescribe inhaler devices. The survey collected demographic characteristics (four items), preferences (two items), and issues related to knowledge (three items) and education (two items) about devices and inhalation techniques. Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary, individual, and anonymous. RESULTS: A total of 1514 respondents completed the questionnaire. Dry powder inhalers (DPI) were preferred by 61.2% physicians, but only 46.1% identified "inhale deeply and forcefully" as the most significant step in the inhalation maneuver using these devices. Only 27.7% stated that they always checked the patient's inhalation technique when prescribing a new inhaler. A composite variable, general inhaled therapy knowledge, which pooled the correct answers related to knowledge, revealed that only 14.2% physicians had an adequate knowledge of inhaled therapy. Multivariate analysis showed that this knowledge was lowest among internal medicine and primary care physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribers' knowledge of inhalers and inhalation techniques remains poor in Spain. The causes should be identified in further research to allow effective educational strategies to be developed. Specific educational policies should be addressed to general practitioners.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it