Cargando…

The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability

BACKGROUND: The choice of the Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) to prescribe is a critical issue. The estimation of DPIs usability depends on the objective assessment of several indices related to both subjective and objective determinants. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is a comprehensive to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Povero, Massimiliano, Turco, Paola, Bonadiman, Luca, Dal Negro, Roberto W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7385528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32782791
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/mrm.2020.659
_version_ 1783563804695592960
author Povero, Massimiliano
Turco, Paola
Bonadiman, Luca
Dal Negro, Roberto W.
author_facet Povero, Massimiliano
Turco, Paola
Bonadiman, Luca
Dal Negro, Roberto W.
author_sort Povero, Massimiliano
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The choice of the Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) to prescribe is a critical issue. The estimation of DPIs usability depends on the objective assessment of several indices related to both subjective and objective determinants. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is a comprehensive tool usable for checking, comparing, and ranking inhalers’ usability objectively in real life, but it takes some time to fill. AIM: The aim of this study was to favour the quicker check of DPIs usability in clinical practice by means of a simplified short-form GUS (S-GUS) Questionnaire, while maintaining the high specificity and sensitivity of the original, extended version of the Questionnaire (O-GUS questionnaire). METHODS: The usability of the six most prescribed DPIs was assessed in 222 patients with persistent airway obstruction and needing long-term inhalation treatments. LASSO regression and multicollinearity test were used to select the subset of questions of the O-GUS questionnaire, with the highest information power. Each item was then scored using the corresponding coefficient in the linear regression (normalized at 50 as the O-GUS score). Agreement between the original and the short-form questionnaire was evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa statistic (κ). The overall S-GUS values obtained for each DPI were then compared to those from the O-GUS, in the same patients, using a Bayesian indirect comparison (IC) model. RESULTS: After the statistical selection of the items mostly contributing to the overall score, the novel S-GUS questionnaire consists of twelve items only. Nine items are related to patients’ opinion before DPIs handling, and three to the nurse’s assessment after DPIs practicality. O-GUS and S-GUS score were strongly correlated (R(2)=0.9843, p<0.0001) and the usability score calculated for each DPI by means of the O- and of S- GUS overlapped almost completely (κ=84.5%, 95% CI 81.3% to 89.2%). Furthermore, S-GUS was much faster to complete than O-GUS (mean time 6.1 vs 23.4 minutes, p<0.001). Estimates of S-GUS, obtained from the IC model, allowed to propose a simple classification of usability: “good” by GUS values >25; “pretty good” by values ≤25≥15, and “insufficient” by values <15. CONCLUSIONS: The S-GUS proves as much specific and suitable as the extended O-GUS questionnaire in measuring DPIs usability, while maintaining the same high sensitivity. As the time required for its use is quite shorter, S-GUS is also particularly suitable and helpful in current clinical practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7385528
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73855282020-08-10 The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability Povero, Massimiliano Turco, Paola Bonadiman, Luca Dal Negro, Roberto W. Multidiscip Respir Med Original Research Article BACKGROUND: The choice of the Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) to prescribe is a critical issue. The estimation of DPIs usability depends on the objective assessment of several indices related to both subjective and objective determinants. The Global Usability Score (GUS) Questionnaire is a comprehensive tool usable for checking, comparing, and ranking inhalers’ usability objectively in real life, but it takes some time to fill. AIM: The aim of this study was to favour the quicker check of DPIs usability in clinical practice by means of a simplified short-form GUS (S-GUS) Questionnaire, while maintaining the high specificity and sensitivity of the original, extended version of the Questionnaire (O-GUS questionnaire). METHODS: The usability of the six most prescribed DPIs was assessed in 222 patients with persistent airway obstruction and needing long-term inhalation treatments. LASSO regression and multicollinearity test were used to select the subset of questions of the O-GUS questionnaire, with the highest information power. Each item was then scored using the corresponding coefficient in the linear regression (normalized at 50 as the O-GUS score). Agreement between the original and the short-form questionnaire was evaluated using the Cohen’s kappa statistic (κ). The overall S-GUS values obtained for each DPI were then compared to those from the O-GUS, in the same patients, using a Bayesian indirect comparison (IC) model. RESULTS: After the statistical selection of the items mostly contributing to the overall score, the novel S-GUS questionnaire consists of twelve items only. Nine items are related to patients’ opinion before DPIs handling, and three to the nurse’s assessment after DPIs practicality. O-GUS and S-GUS score were strongly correlated (R(2)=0.9843, p<0.0001) and the usability score calculated for each DPI by means of the O- and of S- GUS overlapped almost completely (κ=84.5%, 95% CI 81.3% to 89.2%). Furthermore, S-GUS was much faster to complete than O-GUS (mean time 6.1 vs 23.4 minutes, p<0.001). Estimates of S-GUS, obtained from the IC model, allowed to propose a simple classification of usability: “good” by GUS values >25; “pretty good” by values ≤25≥15, and “insufficient” by values <15. CONCLUSIONS: The S-GUS proves as much specific and suitable as the extended O-GUS questionnaire in measuring DPIs usability, while maintaining the same high sensitivity. As the time required for its use is quite shorter, S-GUS is also particularly suitable and helpful in current clinical practice. PAGEPress Publications, Pavia, Italy 2020-07-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7385528/ /pubmed/32782791 http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/mrm.2020.659 Text en ©Copyright: the Author(s) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Povero, Massimiliano
Turco, Paola
Bonadiman, Luca
Dal Negro, Roberto W.
The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title_full The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title_fullStr The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title_full_unstemmed The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title_short The Global Usability Score Short-Form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (DPIs) usability
title_sort global usability score short-form for the simplified assessment of dry powder inhalers (dpis) usability
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7385528/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32782791
http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/mrm.2020.659
work_keys_str_mv AT poveromassimiliano theglobalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT turcopaola theglobalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT bonadimanluca theglobalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT dalnegrorobertow theglobalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT poveromassimiliano globalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT turcopaola globalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT bonadimanluca globalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability
AT dalnegrorobertow globalusabilityscoreshortformforthesimplifiedassessmentofdrypowderinhalersdpisusability