Home › Research › Digital health tools
Patient and physician factors associated with pulmonary function testing for COPD: a population study
Gershon AS, Hwee J, Croxford R, Aaron SD, To T.. Chest, 2014-02-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background The diagnosis of COPD is made by objectively demonstrating nonreversible airflow obstruction of the lungs. Despite this, rates of pulmonary function testing (PFT) for diagnosis remain low. It is still not known why testing is underused. Methods We conducted a population study using the health administrative data of all individuals 35 years of age and older newly diagnosed with COPD in Ontario, Canada, between 2000 and 2010. Receipt of PFT during the peridiagnostic period (between 1 year before and 1 year after a diagnosis of COPD) was determined and related to patient demographic and clinical characteristics as well as primary care physician and health-care system factors. Results Only 35.9% of the 491,754 Ontarians newly diagnosed with COPD during the study period received PFT. Individuals diagnosed before age 50 years or after age 80 years, those living in long-term care, and those with stroke and/or dementia were less likely to receive testing. Patients who had a medical specialist involved in their care and/or had other coexisting pulmonary disease were more likely to receive testing. Finally, older primary care physicians were less likely to order testing for their patients. Conclusions Only about one-third of individuals with COPD in Ontario, Canada, received PFT to confirm their diagnosis; age, comorbidity, and physician factors appear to influence its use. Targeted strategies that address these factors could increase the rate of appropriate testing of people with suspected COPD and improve quality of COPD care.
Key findings
- Results Only 35.9% of the 491,754 Ontarians newly diagnosed with COPD during the study period received PFT.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Effect size35.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Chest) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24008897) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Gershon, A. S., Hwee, J., Croxford, R., Aaron, S. D., & To, T. (2014). Patient and physician factors associated with pulmonary function testing for COPD: a population study. Chest. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0790
Vancouver
Gershon AS, Hwee J, Croxford R, Aaron SD, To T. Patient and physician factors associated with pulmonary function testing for COPD: a population study. Chest. 2014. doi:10.1378/chest.13-0790. PMID: 24008897.
BibTeX
@article{gershon2014-24008897,
author = {Gershon, A. S. and Hwee, J. and Croxford, R. and Aaron, S. D. and To, T.},
title = {{Patient and physician factors associated with pulmonary function testing for COPD: a population study}},
journal = {Chest},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1378/chest.13-0790},
pmid = {24008897},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-0790}
}