MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168037807 · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-10-18

Competence in metered dose inhaler technique among dispensers in Mekelle

2014· article· en· W2168037807 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hussen D Ali, Gubena S Worku, Asfaw A Alemayehu, W aregay H Gebrehiwot

Bibliographic record

VenueAllergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMekelle University
KeywordsMetered-dose inhalerMedicinePharmacyInhalerAsthmaCompetence (human resources)ModalitiesFamily medicineMedical educationPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inhaled medications are the cornerstone of asthma therapy. Metered dose inhaler technique is a widely used technique to administer medications like corticosteroids. Meanwhile, the health professionals and patients knowledge and practice towards this metered dose inhaler is quite deficient but arguably understood by policy makers or education expertise. OBJECTIVE: This study tried to assess the pharmacists and druggists competency on MDI who are the professionals at the front line to demonstrate and teach the technique for patients. METHOD: A cross sectional study was conducted among registered pharmacists and druggists from different public and private pharmacies and drug stores in Mekelle Town, Ethiopia from March to June, 2013. Evaluation tool was adapted from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Programmes of America (NAEPP) step criteria for the administration of a metered dose inhaler to score the knowledge/proficiency of use of MDIs by the subjects using two evaluators. RESULT: The mean score given by evaluators was 4.34 and 4.28 by evaluator I and II respectively. Of the 106 professionals took part in this research, based on the competency on essential steps for optimum therapeutic value of MDI, only 2 (1.9%) and 1 (0.9%) study participants had adequate competency in metered dose inhaler according to evaluator I and evaluator II respectively. The rest, irrespective of their age, sex, educational status and experience, did not achieve adequate score on MDI technique. Of the essential steps, only 25 (23.6%) and 16 (15.1%) participants breathed in and actuating the canister together according to evaluators I and II respectively. CONCLUSION: Very poor MDI technique was very common in this sample of healthcare providers. Despite involvement of all participants in patient counselling on inhalers, none of them were able to perform all steps correctly, which shows that patient may not have adequate instruction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAllergy Asthma and Clinical ImmunologySame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207