Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Primary Care Respiratory Journal
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • Log in
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. primary care respiratory journal
  3. articles
  4. article
Technique training does not improve the ability of most patients to use pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs)
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Published: 11 January 2011

Technique training does not improve the ability of most patients to use pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs)

  • Alison Hardwell1,
  • Victoria Barber2,
  • Tina Hargadon2,
  • Eddie McKnight2,
  • John Holmes3 &
  • …
  • Mark L Levy4 

Primary Care Respiratory Journal volume 20, pages 92–96 (2011) Cite this article

  • 3840 Accesses

  • 78 Citations

  • 5 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Aims:

According to guidelines, inhaler technique should be tested in all patients, particularly those with poorly controlled asthma. We aimed to assess uncontrolled asthma patients' ability to use a pressurised metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) using the Aerosol Inhalation Monitor (AIM, © Vitalograph).

Methods:

Practices invited patients for a detailed clinical review by trained asthma nurses according to practice-agreed protocols. Reviews took place from 1st April to 30th June 2008, and included checking of inhaler technique. Reasons for invitations included time since last review, asthma control, prescriptions, and adherence to medical advice. A proxy measure of control — the total number of short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) bronchodilator inhaler canisters prescribed in the previous 12 months — was used. Data on 77 pre-determined clinical parameters (including prescribing and healthcare utilisation data) were collected. Patient-completed postal symptom questionnaires (the RCP 3 questions) were obtained in some patients. All patients using pMDIs had at least two assessments using the AIM, and where appropriate inhaler technique education was provided.

Results:

2123 (24% of those invited) symptomatic asthma patients were reviewed; 1291 (61%) were using pMDIs (mean age 52 years; SD 21), of whom over 80% were in BTS/SIGN Steps 2 and 3. 1092 (85.6%) of those patients using pMDIs failed the first AIM assessment. There was a significant increase in the number of patients able to use their pMDIs correctly following instruction after the second (129 to 260 of 1197 patients, p<0.01) and third (61 to 181 of 528 patients, p< 0.01) tests. However, 78.4% and 65.7% of those tested twice and three times, respectively, failed the AIM assessment despite instruction. Logistic regression analysis failed to show any effect of age and BTS step on these outcomes.

Conclusions:

A majority of symptomatic asthma patients in this study were unable to use pMDIs correctly. It is essential to check all patients' ability to use their prescribed inhalers regularly. Cost alone should not determine prescribing recommendations.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Download PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

Clinically-enhanced digital health program for respiratory care associated with better medication use and retention

Article Open access 28 December 2024

Educating the patient, controlling the disease: a point prevalence evaluation of structured pharmaceutical asthma care in real world settings

Article Open access 16 May 2026

A guide for a patient-centric approach to asthma management: results of a European Delphi consensus programme

Article Open access 19 December 2025

Article PDF

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Services for Health Improvement (NSHI), Dartford, Kent, UK

    Alison Hardwell

  2. Magister Consulting, Bristol, UK

    Victoria Barber, Tina Hargadon & Eddie McKnight

  3. Teva UK Limited, Harlow, Essex, UK

    John Holmes

  4. Senior Clinical Research Fellow, Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences: GP section, The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Mark L Levy

Authors
  1. Alison Hardwell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victoria Barber
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tina Hargadon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eddie McKnight
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John Holmes
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mark L Levy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark L Levy.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The EACS Service is provided by National Services for Health Improvement (NSHI) and is sponsored by Teva UK Limited.

JH is an employee of Teva UK Limited, Harlow, Essex.

MLL has accepted sponsorship from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca (AZ), Boehringer Ingelheim (BI), Cheisi, Merck Sharpe and Dohme (MSD), Merck, Altana Pharma, Novartis, Meda Pharmaceuticals, 3M Pharmaceuticals, and Schering Plough for attending conferences. He has accepted lecture fees from BI, GSK, AZ, Cheisi and Alk-Abello. He has been on advisory boards or provided consultancy for GSK, Schering Plough, MSD, Cheisi, Altana Pharma, Ranbaxy, AZ, 3M Pharmaceuticals and Novartis. He has had research grants from BI, Pfizer and GSK. He is a member of the ADMIT Group, which receives an unrestricted educational grant from MEDA pharmaceuticals. He is the former Editor-in-Chief of the PCRJ, but was not involved in the editorial review of, nor the decision to publish, this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hardwell, A., Barber, V., Hargadon, T. et al. Technique training does not improve the ability of most patients to use pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). Prim Care Respir J 20, 92–96 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2010.00088

Download citation

  • Received: 16 June 2010

  • Revised: 05 December 2010

  • Accepted: 06 December 2010

  • Published: 11 January 2011

  • Issue date: March 2011

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2010.00088

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

  • Identifying Critical Errors: Addressing Inhaler Technique in the Context of Asthma Management

    • Sinthia Z. Bosnic-Anticevich
    • Biljana Cvetkovski
    • Vicky Kritikos

    Pulmonary Therapy (2018)

  • Inhalation characteristics of asthma patients, COPD patients and healthy volunteers with the Spiromax® and Turbuhaler® devices: a randomised, cross-over study

    • Wahida Azouz
    • Philip Chetcuti
    • Henry Chrystyn

    BMC Pulmonary Medicine (2015)

  • The importance of inhaler devices in the treatment of COPD

    • Matteo Bonini
    • Omar S. Usmani

    COPD Research and Practice (2015)

  • Towards tailored and targeted adherence assessment to optimise asthma management

    • Job FM van Boven
    • Jaap CA Trappenburg
    • Niels H Chavannes

    npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine (2015)

  • Characterization of a human powered nebulizer compressor for resource poor settings

    • Christopher J Hallberg
    • Mary Therese Lysaught
    • Lars E Olson

    BioMedical Engineering OnLine (2014)

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Download PDF

Associated content

Asthma therapy: there are guidelines, and then there is real life…

  • Chris J Corrigan
Primary Care Respiratory Journal Editorial 18 Feb 2011

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Journal Information

Publish with us

  • Language editing services
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Primary Care Respiratory Journal (Prim Care Respir J)

ISSN 1475-1534 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing