What are the frequency and percentage of the COPD patients in the severe airflow limitation group who are employed in the Eckerblad et al. (2014) study?
The researcher adopted the COPED for the patients with severe airflow limitations where pertinent percentages, including 14% and 7% were given proper regard.
What percentage of the total sample is retired? What percentage of the total sample is on sick leave?
From the result of the study, it is evident that 15% and 61% of the entire sample were on leave of absence and retirement respectively.
What is the total sample size of this study? What frequency and percentage of the total sample were still employed?
Using MSAS, the researchers evaluated the symptoms of 91 participating in the study. The frequencies of 14, 7 were adopted where the patients with moderate and severe symptoms were considered. To obtain the percentage of adopted participants their frequency is divided by sample n=91 to get 15%.
What is the total percentage of the sample with a smoking history—either still smoking or former smokers? Is the smoking history for study participants clinically important?
From the adopted sample n=91, 97% had smoking history. Apparently, this is a vital element in the study because of the positive correlation between smoking and COPD. It is worth noting that continued smoking among the patients worsens the symptoms relative to former smokers.
What are pack years of smoking? Is there a significant difference between the moderate and severe airflow limitation groups regarding pack years of smoking?
Life exposure to tobacco and all its causative agents could reflect using pack years of smoking, where a single pack year is the unit used in measuring an individual’s tobacco consumption and is equated to consuming 20 sticks of cigarette per day for 365 consecutive days or 7305 sticks per year. It is worth noting that the number of sticks per day is critical in determining history years. For instance, a person consuming 5 cigarettes per day for 10 years has 2 and a half years of smoking history. According to the study, the sample members with moderate and severe airflow limitations had no differences regarding the pack years. The p-value (0.177) was considerably higher relative to the set value of 0.05.
What were the four most common psychological symptoms reported by this sample of patients with COPD? What percentage of these subjects experienced these symptoms? Was there a significant difference between the moderate and severe airflow limitation groups for psychological symptoms?
Regarding the prevalence of psychological symptoms, 52% of the sample n=91 experienced sleeping difficulties, 33% had psychological disturbance associate with worry, 28% experienced irritability, while 22% had sad feelings. Concerning symptoms between the patients from different groups of airflow limitations, the observed differences were of no considerable value.
What frequency and percentage of the total sample used short-acting β2 -agonists?
From the moderate group adopting inhalation treatment technique containing the short-acting β2 –agonists, a section of 13 participants was obtained. On the other hand, a section of 32 participants was from the severe group adopting the β2 –agonists. To obtain the percentage of the sample n=91, the total proportions (13 plus 32) treated using short-acting β2 –agonists is divided by n=91 which translates to 49%.
Is there a significant difference between the moderate and severe airflow limitation groups regarding the use of short-acting β 2 -agonists?
Considerable differences were observed regarding the adoption of inhalation treatment with short-acting β2 –agonists between the severe and moderate airflow limitation groups. Members from the first group, severe airflow limitation, were reported to have two times more reports of the use of the treatment. From table 1, it is easy to obtain the p-value for the frequency of the use of short-acting β2 –agonists. It is worth noting that the p-value in table 1, 0.001, is significantly lower relative to the set value of 0.05.
Was the percentage of COPD patients with moderate and severe airflow limitation using short acting β 2 -agonists what you expected?
Data from the National Guidelines Clearinghouse on COPD indicate that adopting long and short-acting β2 –agonists as treatment techniques has considerable degree of efficacy, especially in lessening the symptoms and reducing the chances of the condition getting worse relative to short-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy (AHRQ, 2015). As such, it is apparent that participants from the severe category have higher propensity to adopt the inhalation with short-acting β2 –agonists treatment techniques.
AHRQ. (2015). Prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD: American College of Chest Physicians and Canadian Thoracic.
Are these findings ready for use in practice?
It is vital to recognize and adopt the findings of the study in clinical practice. The findings provide vital information, especially regarding the alleviation of symptoms in COPD patients. It is critical to note that the ineptitude of the study in giving proper suggestion for the best techniques notwithstanding, it is vital during the evaluation of symptoms during initial stages of managing COPD.
Reference List
Eckerblad, J., Tödt, K., Jakobsson, P., Unosson, M., Skargren, E., Kentsson, M., & Theander, K. (2014). Symptom burden in stable COPD patients with moderate or severe airflow limitation. Heart & Lung, 43(4), 351–357.