AIM: To evaluate the impact of a medical education course (MEC) on the behaviour of general practitioners (GPs) to treat asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). METHODS: Data on 1820 patients (mean age 41 yrs ± 17 yrs) with asthma or AR were collected by 107 Italian GPs: 50% attended a MEC and 50% didn't (group B). The adherence for AR and asthma treatment was evaluated according to ARIA and GINA guidelines (GL). RESULTS: AR and asthma were diagnosed in 78% and 56% of patients; 34% had concomitant AR and asthma. Regardless of the MEC, the adherence to GL was significantly higher for AR than for asthma treatment (52 versus 19%). Group B GPs were more compliant to ARIA guidelines in the treatment of mild AR, whereas group A were more compliant in the treatment of moderate-severe AR; the adherence didn't differ between the groups for AR patients with comorbid asthma. Adherence to GINA GL for asthma treatment did not differ between GPs of groups A and B, independently from concomitant AR. Though insignificantly, group A were more compliant to GINA GL in the treatment of patients with only severe persistent asthma (63 versus 46%) as group B were for patients with severe persistent asthma and concomitant AR. CONCLUSIONS: GPs often tend to treat patients independently from GL. The impact of a single MEC did not improve adherence to GL in treating less severe AR and asthma patients, while there was a trend towards the opposite attitude in more severe AR patients without concomitant asthma

The ARGA study with general practitioners: impact of medical education on asthma/rhinitis management

ARGA study group
2012

Abstract

AIM: To evaluate the impact of a medical education course (MEC) on the behaviour of general practitioners (GPs) to treat asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). METHODS: Data on 1820 patients (mean age 41 yrs ± 17 yrs) with asthma or AR were collected by 107 Italian GPs: 50% attended a MEC and 50% didn't (group B). The adherence for AR and asthma treatment was evaluated according to ARIA and GINA guidelines (GL). RESULTS: AR and asthma were diagnosed in 78% and 56% of patients; 34% had concomitant AR and asthma. Regardless of the MEC, the adherence to GL was significantly higher for AR than for asthma treatment (52 versus 19%). Group B GPs were more compliant to ARIA guidelines in the treatment of mild AR, whereas group A were more compliant in the treatment of moderate-severe AR; the adherence didn't differ between the groups for AR patients with comorbid asthma. Adherence to GINA GL for asthma treatment did not differ between GPs of groups A and B, independently from concomitant AR. Though insignificantly, group A were more compliant to GINA GL in the treatment of patients with only severe persistent asthma (63 versus 46%) as group B were for patients with severe persistent asthma and concomitant AR. CONCLUSIONS: GPs often tend to treat patients independently from GL. The impact of a single MEC did not improve adherence to GL in treating less severe AR and asthma patients, while there was a trend towards the opposite attitude in more severe AR patients without concomitant asthma
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11695/3128
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 30
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 28
social impact