AIM: The original purpose of this study was to determine the Minimal Important Difference for the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) but an unexpected tendency of clinicians to overestimate improvements in asthma control thwarted the endeavour. We describe the observed clinician bias and discuss its implications for clinical practice and research. METHODS: Ninety-four adults with inadequately controlled asthma received a full clinical consultation with one of nine asthma specialists. Medications were adjusted according to clinical needs. Four weeks later the same clinician estimated change in asthma control on a 15-point scale (-7 = a very great deal worse, 0 = no change, +7 a very great deal better). All patients completed the ACQ before each consultation but responses were not shown to the clinician. RESULTS: Clinicians consistently recorded that patients improved more than their change in ACQ scores suggested (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of potential biases that may occur when estimating change in asthma control compared with measuring absolute status at each visit.
AIM: The original purpose of this study was to determine the Minimal Important Difference for the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) but an unexpected tendency of clinicians to overestimate improvements in asthma control thwarted the endeavour. We describe the observed clinician bias and discuss its implications for clinical practice and research. METHODS: Ninety-four adults with inadequately controlled asthma received a full clinical consultation with one of nine asthma specialists. Medications were adjusted according to clinical needs. Four weeks later the same clinician estimated change in asthma control on a 15-point scale (-7 = a very great deal worse, 0 = no change, +7 a very great deal better). All patients completed the ACQ before each consultation but responses were not shown to the clinician. RESULTS: Clinicians consistently recorded that patients improved more than their change in ACQ scores suggested (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Clinicians should be aware of potential biases that may occur when estimating change in asthma control compared with measuring absolute status at each visit.
Authors: Kathleen F Harrington; Bin Zhang; Teresa Magruder; William C Bailey; Lynn B Gerald Journal: Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 1.349
Authors: Anne M Fitzpatrick; Stanley J Szefler; David T Mauger; Brenda R Phillips; Loren C Denlinger; Wendy C Moore; Ronald L Sorkness; Sally E Wenzel; Peter J Gergen; Eugene R Bleecker; Mario Castro; Serpil C Erzurum; John V Fahy; Benjamin M Gaston; Elliot Israel; Bruce D Levy; Deborah A Meyers; W Gerald Teague; Leonard B Bacharier; Ngoc P Ly; Wanda Phipatanakul; Kristie R Ross; Joe Zein; Nizar N Jarjour Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Lotte van den Nieuwenhof; Tjard Schermer; Marianne Heins; Joke Grootens; Petra Eysink; Ben Bottema; Chris van Weel; Patrick Bindels Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Joao A Fonseca; Luis Nogueira-Silva; Mario Morais-Almeida; Ana Sa-Sousa; Luis F Azevedo; Jose Ferreira; Manuel Branco-Ferreira; Rodrigo Rodrigues-Alves; Antonio Bugalho-Almeida; Jean Bousquet Journal: Clin Transl Allergy Date: 2012-08-30 Impact factor: 5.871
Authors: Hanaa F Elkhenini; Kourtney J Davis; Norman D Stein; John P New; Mark R Delderfield; Martin Gibson; Jorgen Vestbo; Ashley Woodcock; Nawar Diar Bakerly Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Rob Horne; David Price; Jen Cleland; Rui Costa; Donna Covey; Kevin Gruffydd-Jones; John Haughney; Svein Hoegh Henrichsen; Alan Kaplan; Arnulf Langhammer; Anders Østrem; Mike Thomas; Thys van der Molen; J Christian Virchow; Siân Williams Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2007-05-22 Impact factor: 3.317