Kristin Palmsten1, Michael Schatz2, Priscilla H Chan3, Diana L Johnson3, Christina D Chambers4. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif. Electronic address: kpalmsten@ucsd.edu. 2. Department of Allergy, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, San Diego, Calif. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal asthma control during pregnancy may affect perinatal outcomes. US guidelines recommend questionnaires to assess asthma control including the Asthma Control Test (ACT). OBJECTIVE: To validate telephone administration of a modified version of ACT during pregnancy. METHODS: MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies (2011-2013) enrolled 159 pregnant women with asthma. Participants were interviewed by telephone at intake, at approximately gestational weeks 20 and 32, and postpartum. The ACT was modified to address dyspnea specifically due to asthma; the modified version is the Pregnancy Asthma Control Test (p-ACT). Women answered the p-ACT and guideline-based asthma impairment questions and reported asthma course changes and exacerbations. Possible p-ACT scores ranged from 5 to 25; higher score indicated better control. Reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, prospective validity, and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was similar across time points (0.84-0.90). The p-ACT score varied by impairment; for example, at intake, the mean score was 23.2 for well-controlled versus 13.7 for very poorly controlled asthma. The p-ACT score change between interviews differed by asthma course; for example, women reporting that their asthma was much better at week 20 than at intake had a mean score increase of 4.7; women reporting that their asthma was a little worse had a mean score decrease of 1.3. Lower p-ACT score was associated with previous exacerbations, whereas intake p-ACT score was not associated with future exacerbations during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The p-ACT demonstrated good internal consistency, varied in the expected direction by impairment level, and was responsive to changes in asthma course. Telephone administration of the p-ACT is reliable and valid for assessing asthma control during pregnancy.
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal asthma control during pregnancy may affect perinatal outcomes. US guidelines recommend questionnaires to assess asthma control including the Asthma Control Test (ACT). OBJECTIVE: To validate telephone administration of a modified version of ACT during pregnancy. METHODS: MotherToBaby Pregnancy Studies (2011-2013) enrolled 159 pregnant women with asthma. Participants were interviewed by telephone at intake, at approximately gestational weeks 20 and 32, and postpartum. The ACT was modified to address dyspnea specifically due to asthma; the modified version is the Pregnancy Asthma Control Test (p-ACT). Women answered the p-ACT and guideline-based asthma impairment questions and reported asthma course changes and exacerbations. Possible p-ACT scores ranged from 5 to 25; higher score indicated better control. Reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, prospective validity, and responsiveness were assessed. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was similar across time points (0.84-0.90). The p-ACT score varied by impairment; for example, at intake, the mean score was 23.2 for well-controlled versus 13.7 for very poorly controlled asthma. The p-ACT score change between interviews differed by asthma course; for example, women reporting that their asthma was much better at week 20 than at intake had a mean score increase of 4.7; women reporting that their asthma was a little worse had a mean score decrease of 1.3. Lower p-ACT score was associated with previous exacerbations, whereas intake p-ACT score was not associated with future exacerbations during pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The p-ACT demonstrated good internal consistency, varied in the expected direction by impairment level, and was responsive to changes in asthma course. Telephone administration of the p-ACT is reliable and valid for assessing asthma control during pregnancy.
Authors: Kecia N Carroll; Marie R Griffin; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Ed Mitchel; Tina V Hartert Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Helen L Kwon; Elizabeth W Triche; Kathleen Belanger; Michael B Bracken Journal: Immunol Allergy Clin North Am Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.479
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: Michael Schatz; Robert S Zeiger; Alexandra Drane; Kathleen Harden; Aysel Cibildak; Jon E Oosterman; Mark Kosinski Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2006-12-27 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Mauro Monteiro de Aguiar; José Ângelo Rizzo; Elias Ferreira de Melo Junior; Maria Eduarda Pires Lins E Silva Lima; Emanuel Sávio Cavalcanti Sarinho Journal: Respir Med Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Michael Schatz; Mitchell P Dombrowski; Robert Wise; Valerija Momirova; Mark Landon; William Mabie; Roger B Newman; Dwight J Rouse; Marshall Lindheimer; Menachem Miodovnik; Steve N Caritis; Kenneth J Leveno; Paul Meis; Ronald J Wapner; Richard H Paul; Mary Jo O'Sullivan; Michael W Varner; Gary R Thurnau; Deborah L Conway Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Pauline Mendola; S Katherine Laughon; Tuija I Männistö; Kira Leishear; Uma M Reddy; Zhen Chen; Jun Zhang Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Michael Schatz; David M Mosen; Mark Kosinski; William M Vollmer; David J Magid; Elizabeth O'Connor; Robert S Zeiger Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Rachel Enriquez; Marie R Griffin; Kecia N Carroll; Pingsheng Wu; William O Cooper; Tebeb Gebretsadik; William D Dupont; Edward F Mitchel; Tina V Hartert Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Hooman Mirzakhani; Vincent J Carey; Thomas F McElrath; Nancy Laranjo; George O'Connor; Ronald E Iverson; Aviva Lee-Parritz; Robert C Strunk; Leonard B Bacharier; George A Macones; Robert S Zeiger; Michael Schatz; Bruce W Hollis; Augusto A Litonjua; Scott T Weiss Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017-09-08
Authors: Wanis H Ibrahim; Fatima Rasul; Mushtaq Ahmad; Abeer S Bajwa; Laith I Alamlih; Anam M El Arabi; Mujahed M Dauleh; Ibrahim Y Abubeker; Muhammed U Khan; Tayseer S Ibrahim; Azdin A Ibrahim Journal: Chron Respir Dis Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 2.444
Authors: Mari Kemppainen; Anna-Maria Lahesmaa-Korpinen; Paula Kauppi; Martti Virtanen; Suvi M Virtanen; Riitta Karikoski; Mika Gissler; Turkka Kirjavainen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wanis H Ibrahim; Fatima Rasul; Mushtaq Ahmad; Abeer S Bajwa; Laith I Alamlih; Anam M El Arabi; Dhabia Al-Mohannadi; Mohammed Y Siddiqui; Israa S Al-Sheikh; Azdin A Ibrahim Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 2.409