OBJECTIVE: To investigate the attitudes and actions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on treatment. METHODS: A nation-wide multi-center, questionnaire study was carried out to investigate the patient understanding and experience of COPD treatment between Sep. 2007 and Dec. 2008. The questionnaire included the patients' understanding of goal of COPD treatment, previous treatment, and expectation on drugs. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: 2072 patients with COPD in 11 centers were interviewed in the study. The final effective questionnaires were collected from 1698 cases. 653 patients had known of COPD. The attitudes and actions on treatment were analyzed based on these patients. The patients had different understanding of goals for COPD treatment, including 59.1% (384/650) for relieving symptoms. In recent 3 months, the most commonly used drugs were theophylline (53.7%, 351/653), iprotropium (39.8%, 260/653), tiotropium (27.1%, 177/653). 72.0% (465/646) patients used the drugs according to the prescriptions. There were more than 80% patients who did not understand the side effects of anti-cholinergics, β-adrenergic agonists, inhaled steroids, inhaled steroid/long-acting β-agonist combination therapy, or theophyllines. 37.4% (240/641) patients were afraid of side effects of inhaled steroids. 42.2% (274/650) patients often took antibiotics. There was no oxygen supply at home in 60.1% (391/651) patients. 70.5% (457/648) did not have pulmonary rehabilitation. Requirement of long-term regular treatment was considered in 77.4% (500/646) patients. The most important thing about patients' attitude on ideal drugs for COPD was drug efficacy (79.6%, 481/604). The most ideal drug used in the past was fluticasone/salmeterol or tiotropium (16.9%, 78/461). CONCLUSIONS: Patients had different attitudes and actions on COPD treatment. Patient education should be strengthened to realize treatment goals for COPD.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the attitudes and actions of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on treatment. METHODS: A nation-wide multi-center, questionnaire study was carried out to investigate the patient understanding and experience of COPD treatment between Sep. 2007 and Dec. 2008. The questionnaire included the patients' understanding of goal of COPD treatment, previous treatment, and expectation on drugs. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods. RESULTS: 2072 patients with COPD in 11 centers were interviewed in the study. The final effective questionnaires were collected from 1698 cases. 653 patients had known of COPD. The attitudes and actions on treatment were analyzed based on these patients. The patients had different understanding of goals for COPD treatment, including 59.1% (384/650) for relieving symptoms. In recent 3 months, the most commonly used drugs were theophylline (53.7%, 351/653), iprotropium (39.8%, 260/653), tiotropium (27.1%, 177/653). 72.0% (465/646) patients used the drugs according to the prescriptions. There were more than 80% patients who did not understand the side effects of anti-cholinergics, β-adrenergic agonists, inhaled steroids, inhaled steroid/long-acting β-agonist combination therapy, or theophyllines. 37.4% (240/641) patients were afraid of side effects of inhaled steroids. 42.2% (274/650) patients often took antibiotics. There was no oxygen supply at home in 60.1% (391/651) patients. 70.5% (457/648) did not have pulmonary rehabilitation. Requirement of long-term regular treatment was considered in 77.4% (500/646) patients. The most important thing about patients' attitude on ideal drugs for COPD was drug efficacy (79.6%, 481/604). The most ideal drug used in the past was fluticasone/salmeterol or tiotropium (16.9%, 78/461). CONCLUSIONS:Patients had different attitudes and actions on COPD treatment. Patient education should be strengthened to realize treatment goals for COPD.
Authors: Peian Lou; Yanan Zhu; Peipei Chen; Pan Zhang; Jiaxi Yu; Ning Zhang; Na Chen; Lei Zhang; Hongmin Wu; Jing Zhao Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-04-20 Impact factor: 3.295