Search

Objective: The difficulties adults have using inhaler devices is well documented but much less is known about how parents administer inhaler devices to young children and the difficulties experienced. The purpose of this article is to explore the underlying concepts and practical issues that parents encounter in administering inhaled asthma medications to their young children. Methods: This is a qualitative study using applied thematic analysis on parental written discourses from asynchronous online discussion forums on the topic of administration and use of asthma inhaler devices to young children. Results: "At a loss of what to do" summarizes the experiences parents described when administering inhaler devices to their young children. Parents describe the problems, the situations, the emotions, the decisions, and the confusion they face. They struggle with their child's resistance and the associated conflict, describing their own and their child's distress. Results highlight the coping strategies used in administration, how parents decide whether to use coercive measures or not, their help-seeking endeavors, together with the assurance they give to themselves and others after administration. Conclusion: The online discussions highlight parents' distress, lack of preparedness, and understanding of administering inhaler devices to young children. While the prevalence of the problem cannot be estimated from our data, it illustrates a need for some healthcare professionals to review their own knowledge and skills in administration of inhaled medication to younger patients, and their provision of patient and family centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patient education materials (PEMs) are commonly used for patient education. This study assessed readability, format quality, accuracy, understandability and actionability of printed asthma PEMs available in primary care in Singapore. Methods: Primary care in Singapore is provided by island-wide polyclinics and private general practices. We invited the three polyclinic healthcare groups and private general practices via the Primary Care Research Network to submit asthma-related PEMs. Readability was assessed using Simple Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG) and Flesch–Kincaid (FK) score. Format quality was assessed using "Clear-print and large-print golden rules" from UK Association for Accessible Formats (UKAAF). Understandability and actionability were evaluated using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool – Printed. Three pulmonologists assessed content accuracy. Results: Thirty leaflets were assessed. SMOG and FK estimated 93% (mean 9.3, range 5–14, SD 1.8) and 47% (mean 6.8, range 2.4–9.9, SD 2.0) exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level, respectively. About a third (37%) were fully concordant with UKAAF guidelines, with poor format quality contributed by small font size, poor text emphasis methods, and not using left-aligned text. Leaflets generally scored well in both understandability (mean 84%) and actionability (mean 72%). Thirteen leaflets were inaccurate, 92% of which contained at least one inaccuracy judged to have potentially harmful consequences to patients, including wrong emergency advice. Conclusion: While understandability and actionability are adequate, current asthma PEMs are limited by inappropriately high reading levels, poor format quality and inaccuracies. Healthcare professionals need to assess patients' reading abilities and ensure PEMs are accurate and suitable for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]