Scholarlink

<p>At-home spirometry could provide added value for the diagnosis and monitoring of obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care. However, it is unknown whether implementation in a real-world setting is practicable and produces good quality spirometry. We studied feasibility, quality and added value of at-home spirometry in primary care practices in the Netherlands and Sweden. Adults with an asthma- or COPD-related spirometry indication were provided with equipment to perform unsupervised spirometry at-home. Differences in FEV<sub>1</sub> and FVC-values from home and general practice were compared, and questionnaires on feasibility were completed by participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Of 140 participants, 89.3% completed a home spirometry session, of whom 59.2% produced acceptable spirometry. Overall, HCPs and participants rated home spirometry as feasible and of added value for asthma and COPD monitoring in primary care, though less helpful for diagnostic purposes. A small mean difference in spirometry results was observed, with FEV<sub>1</sub> and FVC at-home being 0.076 and 0.094 L higher than at the GP office, respectively.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Feasibility, quality and added value of unsupervised at-home spirometry in primary care

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月29日

查看全文
  • T. A. le Rütte,
  • M. Kerkhof,
  • Y. H. Gerritsma,
  • M. M. G. Driessen-Roelfszema,
  • L. van den Bemt,
  • J. W. M. Muris,
  • R. A. Riemersma,
  • H. Sandelowsky,
  • B. Stridh,
  • J. W. H. Kocks

摘要

At-home spirometry could provide added value for the diagnosis and monitoring of obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care. However, it is unknown whether implementation in a real-world setting is practicable and produces good quality spirometry. We studied feasibility, quality and added value of at-home spirometry in primary care practices in the Netherlands and Sweden. Adults with an asthma- or COPD-related spirometry indication were provided with equipment to perform unsupervised spirometry at-home. Differences in FEV1 and FVC-values from home and general practice were compared, and questionnaires on feasibility were completed by participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Of 140 participants, 89.3% completed a home spirometry session, of whom 59.2% produced acceptable spirometry. Overall, HCPs and participants rated home spirometry as feasible and of added value for asthma and COPD monitoring in primary care, though less helpful for diagnostic purposes. A small mean difference in spirometry results was observed, with FEV1 and FVC at-home being 0.076 and 0.094 L higher than at the GP office, respectively.