How to improve patient adherence to spacers: Results from a patient survey following introduction of a new spacer designed to help use ‘On the Go’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Although Spacers (Valved Holding Chambers) have been shown to minimize problems of poor inhalation technique and target pMDI delivery to the lungs, they are often left at home due to their size and appearance. A new spacer was recently introduced in Canada that was developed with feedback from patients in order to address some of the reasons for not using ‘On the Go’. This abstract reports a post launch survey assessing changes in behaviour with the new spacer, which also doubled as a carry case for their reliever pMDI. Methods: The survey was performed on-line by 52 patients (42 Asthma, 8 COPD, 2 Bronchiectasis), average age 46 (15-78) one month after obtaining the new AeroChamber2Go* spacer. They were asked to report how often they used a spacer outside of the home before and after obtaining the new spacer, as well as satisfaction levels of various attributes. Results: The percentage of patients using a spacer outside of the home either 9always9 or 9most of the time9 increased from 29% to 71% following provision of the new spacer. The increase was supported by satisfaction scores in the top two (completely or very) of a 5-point scale for attributes of ‘easy to use’, ‘easy to carry’ and ‘attractive aesthetic’ in 92%, 81% and 90% of patients respectively. Conclusions: Although the survey results need to be validated through longer term assessments in larger numbers, this initial survey highlighted a substantial increase in use of spacer with pMDI ‘On the Go’. The AeroChamber2Go spacer9s improved ease of use, ease of carrying and attractive appearance may have contributed to the noted increased adherence.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".