Expectations and attitudes in primary care towards home-based testing for diagnosing asthma: a mixed methods study
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Asthma is frequently misdiagnosed because clinic-based tests miss its natural variability. As part of early stakeholder engagement, we examined primary-care healthcare professionals (HCP)’ views on using handheld spirometer and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) devices for home-based diagnostic strategies.
Methods
This mixed-method study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 data collection involved two focus groups with primary care HCPs using the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to identify key priorities for home-based asthma diagnostic testing. These findings informed the development of a national electronic survey distributed to primary care HCPs during Phase 2.
Results
Using the NGT focus group participants (n=21), we identified key advantages, challenges, and facilitators for implementing home-based asthma diagnostics, which informed the development of an e-survey. Of 235 HCPs who consented to start the survey, 104 completed all 10 questions. Respondents represented a wide demographic and practices across all levels of socioeconomic deprivation. Only 3% considered home-based diagnostics strategy is unlikely to be feasible. The most frequently cited barrier was high device cost, while patient engagement and device accessibility were identified as the most important enablers. Most respondents highlighted faster and more accurate asthma diagnosis as key potential benefits.
Conclusion
Home-based asthma diagnosis using handheld spirometry and FeNO is generally viewed favourably by primary care professionals based on survey findings, though implementation challenges are multifaceted. Success will require system-level changes in how home-based testing is delivered and supported. The subsequent phase involves evaluation of test feasibility and accuracy, followed by assessment of clinical and cost-effectiveness.
