Empowering Family Physicians to Impart Proper Inhaler Teaching to Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma depend on inhalers for management, but critical errors committed during inhaler use can limit drug effectiveness. Outpatient education in inhaler technique remains inconsistent due to limited resources and inadequate provider knowledge. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a simple, two-session inhaler education program can improve physician attitudes toward inhaler teaching in primary care practice. METHODS: An inhaler education program with small-group hands-on device training was instituted for family physicians (FP) in British Columbia and Alberta. Sessions were spaced one to three months apart. All critical errors were corrected in the first session. Questionnaires surveying current inhaler teaching practices and attitudes toward inhaler teaching were distributed to physicians before and after the program. RESULTS: Forty-one (60%) of a total 68 participating FPs completed both before and after program questionnaires. Before the program, only 20 (49%) reported providing some form of inhaler teaching in their practices, and only four (10%) felt fully competent to teach patients inhaler technique. After the program, 40 (98%) rated their inhaler teaching as good to excellent. Thirty-four (83%) reported providing inhaler teaching in their practices, either by themselves or by an allied health care professional they had personally trained. All stated they could teach inhaler technique within 5 min. Observation of FPs during the second session by certified respiratory educators found that none made critical errors and all had excellent technique. CONCLUSION: A physician inhaler education program can improve attitudes toward inhaler teaching and facilitate implementation in clinical practices.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".