The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inappropriate inhaler use: assessment of use and patient preference of seven inhalation devices
Open accessAbstract
Inefficient inhaler technique is a common problem resulting in poor drug delivery, decreased disease control and increased inhaler use. The aim of this study was to assess patients' use of different inhaler devices and to ascertain whether patient preference is indicative of ease of use and whether current inhaler use has any influence on either technique or preference. We also wished to define the most appropriate method of selecting an inhaler for a patient, taking into account observed technique and device cost. One hundred patients received instruction, in randomized order, in the use of seven different inhaler devices. After instruction they were graded (using predetermined criteria) in their inhaler technique. After assessment patients were asked which three inhalers they most preferred and which, if any, they currently used. Technique was best using the breath-actuated inhalers; the Easi-Breathe and Autohaler, with 91% seen to have good technique. The pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI) fared poorly, in last position with only 79% of patients showing good technique, despite being the most commonly prescribed. The Easi-Breathe was by far the most popular device with the patients. The Autohaler came in second position closely followed by the Clickhaler and Accuhaler. The majority of patients (55%) currently used the pMDI but the pMDI did not score highly for preference or achieve better grades than the other devices. Only 79% of patients tested could use the pMDI effectively even after expert instruction yet it continues to be commonly prescribed. This has important repercussions for drug delivery and hence disease control. Prescribing a patient's preferred device increases cost but can improve efficiency and therefore be cost effective in the long term. Using an inexpensive device (pMDI) when technique is good and the patient's preferred inhaler device when not is one way to optimize delivery and may even reduce cost.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Systematic Review of Errors in Inhaler Use
Sanchis, J., Gich, I., & Pedersen, S. (2016) · CHEST · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.041 · Cited by 538
Evolution of dry powder inhaler design, formulation, and performance
NEWMAN, S. P., & BUSSE, W. W. (2002) · Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1053/rmed.2001.1276 · Cited by 340
Inhalation drug delivery devices: technology update
Garcia-Contreras, L., Ibrahim, M., & Verma, R. (2015) · Medical Devices: Evidence and Research · doi:10.2147/mder.s48888 · Cited by 306
Choosing inhaler devices for people with asthma: Current knowledge and outstanding research needs
Haughney, J., Price, D., Barnes, N. C., Virchow, J. C., Roche, N., & Chrystyn, H. (2010) · Respiratory Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2010.04.012 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- LENNEY, J., INNES, J. A., & CROMPTON, G. K.
- Venue
- Respiratory Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 496-500
- ISSN
- 0954-6111 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1975745964
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inappropriate inhaler use: assessment of use and patient preference of seven inhalation devices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/rmed.1999.0767
- The paper
- LENNEY, J., INNES, J. A., & CROMPTON, G. K. (2000). Inappropriate inhaler use: assessment of use and patient preference of seven inhalation devices. Respiratory Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1053/rmed.1999.0767
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.