Medicina Pulmonar e Respiratória

Asthma Diagnosis in Spain: Survey of Opinions, Attitudes and Knowledge among Primary Care Physicians

Abstract

Jesus Molina Paris, Vicente Plaza, Miguel Angel Lobo Alvarez, Xavier Muñoz, Manuel Pimentel Leal and Eduard Tarragona

Background: Asthma is frequently misdiagnosed. Peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurement is easy and very useful for asthma diagnosis in primary care.

Objectives: The DIANA project aimed to assess the impact of a course on PEF measurement among primary care physicians in Spain.

Methods: A 7-item questionnaire was sent to selected primary care physicians (Phase A). Respondents were then invited to take a web-based course on PEF in asthma diagnosis. Finally, the questionnaire was again sent to all physicians (Phase B). Questionnaires also asked for demographical data such as age, sex, speciality, route of access to speciality, and geographical area. A comparative statistical analysis was performed on the results of both questionnaires. An extended analysis was performed later. Answers were analysed by percentages and using McNemar’s test. The planned duration of the project was one year.

Results: No statistically significant differences in percentages between the two phases were found for Items 1 (related to asthma diagnosis) and 4 (related to availability and use of PEF meter). However, for Item 2 (related to diagnosis of occupational asthma) differences were significant (p<0.05), with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.50 for those participating in Phase B. Differences were also significant (p<0.05) for those who took the course, with an OR of 1.37. For Item 3 (related to the usefulness of measuring daily variability of PEF), there were also significant differences (p<0.05) between the two phases, with an OR of 1.39. There were also significant differences (p<0.05) for those who took the course, with an OR of 1.53.

Conclusions: The first four results of the survey showed that educational intervention may improve knowledge of the usefulness of PEF in asthma diagnosis among primary care physicians. However, the high percentages of correct answers among those who did not take the course merit further investigation.