The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 114, Issue 5 , Pages 391-396, 1 April 2003

Attitudes of physicians toward objective measures of airway function in asthma

  • Liza C O’Dowd, MD

      Affiliations

    • Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Division (LO, RP), University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (LO, DF, TT), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • ,
  • Daniel Fife, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (LO, DF, TT), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    • Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development (DF), Department of Drug Safety and Surveillance, Titusville, New Jersey, USA
  • ,
  • Thomas Tenhave, MPH, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (LO, DF, TT), University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  • ,
  • Reynold A Panettieri Jr, MD

      Affiliations

    • Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Division (LO, RP), University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Reynold A. Panettieri, Jr, MD, Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Division, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, 421 Curie Boulevard, 805 BRB II/III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6160, USA

Received 14 May 2002; received in revised form 21 October 2002; accepted 1 November 2002.

Abstract 

Background

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) recommends pulmonary function testing as part of asthma evaluation. The objectives of this study were to determine the use of spirometry in patients with asthma by primary care physicians and asthma specialists, and to identify barriers to use of spirometry.

Methods

We developed, validated, and administered a mailed survey to primary care physicians and asthma specialists in the general community. We asked about the use of spirometry, access to spirometry, and barriers to spirometry use.

Results

Of 975 eligible subjects, 672 (69%) completed the survey. Asthma specialists were more likely to have an office spirometer (78% [216/277] vs. 43% [169/395], P <0.001) than were primary care physicians, and more likely to report measuring pulmonary function in at least 75% of their patients with asthma (83% [223/270] vs. 34% [131/388], P <0.001). In logistic regression analysis, factors most strongly associated with reported spirometry use (in at least 75% of patients) among asthma specialists were owning a spirometer, disagreeing with the statement that the test requires excessive use of office resources, and agreeing that spirometry is a necessary part of the asthma evaluation. Among primary care physicians, owning a spirometer, agreeing that the data are necessary for accurate diagnosis, and believing that they were trained to perform and interpret the test were most strongly associated with reported spirometry use.

Conclusion

Pulmonary function testing is underutilized by physicians, with rates of utilization lowest among primary care physicians. Providing primary care physicians with better access to spirometry, through provision of a machine and appropriate training in its use and interpretation, may improve compliance with the NAEPP recommendations.

Keywords:  Asthma specialists, primary care physicians, practice guidelines, spirometry, asthma

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This project was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (5T32HL07586), Bethesda, Maryland, and Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, Delaware.

PII: S0002-9343(03)00007-X

doi:10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00007-X

The American Journal of Medicine
Volume 114, Issue 5 , Pages 391-396, 1 April 2003