Nebulizer versus metered dose inhaler with space chamber (MDI spacer) for acute asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation: attitudes of patients and healthcare providers in the COVID-19 era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-acting bronchodilators for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are commonly delivered by nebulizers although administration using metered dose inhaler with space chamber (MDI spacer) has been shown to be equally efficacious. There are few studies examining patients’ and healthcare providers’ attitudes on the two administration methods in adults. This study explores patients’ and healthcare providers’ attitudes on the use of nebulizer versus MDI spacer for acute asthma and COPD exacerbations in adults. Patients admitted for asthma or COPD exacerbations, doctors, and nurses in a university-affiliated hospital were surveyed from 1 April 2021 to 30 September 2021 regarding their views on the effectiveness, ease of use, preparation and administration, side effects, and infection risk of the two administration methods. Ninety-nine patients, 103 doctors, and 650 nurses completed the survey. 60.6% of patients perceived nebulizer to be more effective. Patients who found nebulizer more comfortable were more likely to prefer nebulizer (OR 43.97, p = 0.01), while those who associated it with a greater infection risk were less likely to prefer nebulizer (OR 0.15, p = 0.03). 49.5% of doctors and 49.1% of nurses perceived nebulizer to be more effective, compared to 10.7% and 34.5%, respectively, for MDI spacer. Effectiveness and patient comfort influenced doctors’ and nurses’ preference for nebulizer while ease of preparation and administration influenced nurses’ preference only. Patients and healthcare providers perceived nebulizer to be more effective. Factors unique to each group influenced their preference for nebulizer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".