Xin Zhou1, Feng-Ming Ding2, Jiang-Tao Lin3, Kai-Sheng Yin4. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: xzhou53@163.com. 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China. 3. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Sino-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for assessing clinical asthma control in Chinese patients in primary care settings. METHODS: This multicenter study involved 403 asthma patients from 15 primary care settings in China, who had completed the ACT, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and spirometry testing. According to the rating of asthma control by asthma specialists in line with the Global Initiative for Asthma 2006 guidelines, patients were divided into uncontrolled, partly controlled, and controlled groups to evaluate the reliability, empirical validity, and screening accuracy of the ACT. The screening accuracy of the ACT and ACQ was analyzed comparatively, and the asthma control levels rated by the patients and the specialists were also compared. RESULTS: The five-item ACT had an internal consistency reliability of 0.861 and a correlation coefficient with the specialists' rating of 0.697. The ACT scores showed significant differences between different levels of FEV(1) percent predicted (F = 37.59; p < 0.0001) and specialists' ratings of asthma control (F = 169.53; p < 0.0001), and also between patients requiring different treatment adjustments (F = 111.33; p < 0.0001). The asthma was controlled for an ACT score of >/= 20, partly controlled for scores of 19 and 18, and uncontrolled for a score of </= 17. The ACT showed similar percentages of correctly classified results with ACQ. The patients' self-rated asthma control level was significantly higher than that rated by the specialists (z = 5.93; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The ACT is reliable, valid, and practicable for asthma control assessment in Chinese patients in the primary care setting.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) for assessing clinical asthma control in Chinese patients in primary care settings. METHODS: This multicenter study involved 403 asthmapatients from 15 primary care settings in China, who had completed the ACT, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and spirometry testing. According to the rating of asthma control by asthma specialists in line with the Global Initiative for Asthma 2006 guidelines, patients were divided into uncontrolled, partly controlled, and controlled groups to evaluate the reliability, empirical validity, and screening accuracy of the ACT. The screening accuracy of the ACT and ACQ was analyzed comparatively, and the asthma control levels rated by the patients and the specialists were also compared. RESULTS: The five-item ACT had an internal consistency reliability of 0.861 and a correlation coefficient with the specialists' rating of 0.697. The ACT scores showed significant differences between different levels of FEV(1) percent predicted (F = 37.59; p < 0.0001) and specialists' ratings of asthma control (F = 169.53; p < 0.0001), and also between patients requiring different treatment adjustments (F = 111.33; p < 0.0001). The asthma was controlled for an ACT score of >/= 20, partly controlled for scores of 19 and 18, and uncontrolled for a score of </= 17. The ACT showed similar percentages of correctly classified results with ACQ. The patients' self-rated asthma control level was significantly higher than that rated by the specialists (z = 5.93; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The ACT is reliable, valid, and practicable for asthma control assessment in Chinese patients in the primary care setting.
Authors: Michelle M Cloutier; Michael Schatz; Mario Castro; Noreen Clark; H William Kelly; Rita Mangione-Smith; James Sheller; Christine Sorkness; Stuart Stoloff; Peter Gergen Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Xue Mei Fang; Ying Liu; Ji Wang; Xin Zhang; Lei Wang; Li Zhang; Hong Ping Zhang; Lei Liu; Dan Huang; Dan Liu; Ke Deng; Feng Ming Luo; Hua Jing Wan; Wei Min Li; Gang Wang; Brian G Oliver Journal: Lung Date: 2022-09-26 Impact factor: 3.777