A Bheekie1, J A Syce, E G Weinberg. 1. Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa. abheekie@uwc.ac.za
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of patient-performed peak expiratory flow (PEFR) and symptom monitoring as asthma self-management tools initiated from community pharmacies. DESIGN AND SETTING: 110 patients over 6 years of age were recruited from five private-sector community pharmacies. Patients were identified from pharmacist recall as having 'asthma'. Information on the frequency of their asthma symptoms, medication use, level of physical activity, school or work attendance and lung function was obtained using a questionnaire to classify patients as either mild, moderate or severe. Each patient was alternately assigned to either the symptom or PEFR monitoring procedure in the order they were recruited. Patients performing symptom monitoring used a visual analogue scale to assess symptoms, whereas those in the PEFR monitoring group assessed symptoms and used a pocket-size peak flow meter to measure lung function. Both self-monitoring groups were required to adhere to an individualized management plan based on guideline recommendations and to record their monitored data in a diary card for 2 months. Data from the diary cards were reviewed, collated, transcribed and analysed using the Student t and Mann-Whitney tests. OUTCOME MEASURES: The average monthly frequency of appropriate patient responses determined from their adherence to the self-management plan was used to compare the usefulness of symptom and PEFR self-monitoring. In particular, appropriate use of medication and need for medical consultation was compared. RESULTS: 21 symptom and 40 PEFR-assigned patients completed 2 months' monitoring. The average monthly frequency of appropriate responses in patients using PEFR (0.76) was significantly higher than that of patients using symptom monitoring (0.53, P < 0.006). Patients applying symptom monitoring had a higher monthly frequency (0.39) of inappropriate medication use compared to the PEFR group (0.14). Furthermore, the patients' mean daily symptom scores (2.85) were significantly lower than that estimated by the researcher (4.12, P < 0.03). For all three asthma severity groups a higher monthly average of appropriate responses was observed in patients using PEFR monitoring compared to those who used symptom monitoring. CONCLUSION: PEFR self-monitoring proved to be a more useful asthma tool than symptom self-monitoring. Patients applying symptom monitoring tend to underestimate the severity of their condition and use medication inappropriately. Active involvement of community pharmacists in facilitating and reinforcing out-patient self-monitoring would help to optimize asthma management.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of patient-performed peak expiratory flow (PEFR) and symptom monitoring as asthma self-management tools initiated from community pharmacies. DESIGN AND SETTING: 110 patients over 6 years of age were recruited from five private-sector community pharmacies. Patients were identified from pharmacist recall as having 'asthma'. Information on the frequency of their asthma symptoms, medication use, level of physical activity, school or work attendance and lung function was obtained using a questionnaire to classify patients as either mild, moderate or severe. Each patient was alternately assigned to either the symptom or PEFR monitoring procedure in the order they were recruited. Patients performing symptom monitoring used a visual analogue scale to assess symptoms, whereas those in the PEFR monitoring group assessed symptoms and used a pocket-size peak flow meter to measure lung function. Both self-monitoring groups were required to adhere to an individualized management plan based on guideline recommendations and to record their monitored data in a diary card for 2 months. Data from the diary cards were reviewed, collated, transcribed and analysed using the Student t and Mann-Whitney tests. OUTCOME MEASURES: The average monthly frequency of appropriate patient responses determined from their adherence to the self-management plan was used to compare the usefulness of symptom and PEFR self-monitoring. In particular, appropriate use of medication and need for medical consultation was compared. RESULTS: 21 symptom and 40 PEFR-assigned patients completed 2 months' monitoring. The average monthly frequency of appropriate responses in patients using PEFR (0.76) was significantly higher than that of patients using symptom monitoring (0.53, P < 0.006). Patients applying symptom monitoring had a higher monthly frequency (0.39) of inappropriate medication use compared to the PEFR group (0.14). Furthermore, the patients' mean daily symptom scores (2.85) were significantly lower than that estimated by the researcher (4.12, P < 0.03). For all three asthma severity groups a higher monthly average of appropriate responses was observed in patients using PEFR monitoring compared to those who used symptom monitoring. CONCLUSION: PEFR self-monitoring proved to be a more useful asthma tool than symptom self-monitoring. Patients applying symptom monitoring tend to underestimate the severity of their condition and use medication inappropriately. Active involvement of community pharmacists in facilitating and reinforcing out-patient self-monitoring would help to optimize asthma management.
Authors: Lynn B Gerald; Leslie Ain McClure; Kathy F Harrington; Joan M Mangan; Linda Gibson; Jody Atchison; Roni Grad Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2007-08-07 Impact factor: 2.226