OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the effect of 20-minute mindful breathing on the rapid reduction of dyspnea at rest in patients with lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma.
METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial of standard care plus 20-minute mindful breathing vs. standard care alone for patients with moderate to severe dyspnea due to lung disease, named previously, at the respiratory unit of University Malaya Medical Centre in Malaysia, from August 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018.
RESULTS: Sixty-three participants were randomly assigned to standard care plus a 20-minute mindful breathing session (n = 32) or standard care alone (n = 31), with no difference in their demographic and clinical characteristics. There was statistically significant reduction in dyspnea in the mindful breathing group compared with the control group at minute 5 (U = 233.5, n1 = 32, n2 = 31, mean rank1 = 23.28, mean rank2 = 37.72, z = -3.574, P asthma.
METHOD: Segmented and validated wheeze sounds were obtained from auscultation recordings of the trachea and lower lung base of 55 asthmatic patients during tidal breathing manoeuvres. The segments were multi-labelled into 9 groups based on the auscultation location and/or breath phases. Bandwidths were selected based on the physiology, and a corresponding SI feature was computed for each segment. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were then performed to investigate the discriminatory behaviour of the features with respect to the severity levels in the various groups. The asthmatic severity levels in the groups were then classified using the ensemble (ENS), support vector machine (SVM) and k-nearest neighbour (KNN) methods.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: All statistical comparisons exhibited a significant difference (p asthma severity levels. In addition, the classification performances of the inspiratory and expiratory related groups were comparable, suggesting that the samples from these locations are equally informative.
METHODS: An online/face-to-face, questionnaire-based survey of respiratory specialists and primary care physicians from eight Asian countries/region was carried out. The survey explored asthma control, inhaler selection, technique and use; physician-patient communications and asthma education. Inclusion criteria were >50% of practice time spent on direct patient care; and treated >30 patients with asthma per month, of which >60% were aged >12 years.
RESULTS: REALISE Asia (Phase 2) involved 375 physicians with average 15.9(±6.8) years of clinical experience. 89.1% of physicians reporting use of guidelines estimated that 53.2% of their patients have well-controlled (GINA-defined) asthma. Top consideration for inhaler choice was asthma severity (82.4%) and lowest, socio-economic status (32.5%). Then 54.7% of physicians checked their patients' inhaler techniques during consultations but 28.2(±19.1)% of patients were using their inhalers incorrectly; 21.1-57.9% of physicians could spot improper inhaler techniques in video demonstrations. And 79.6% of physicians believed combination inhalers could increase adherence because of convenience (53.7%), efficacy (52.7%) and usability (18.9%). Initial and follow-up consultations took 16.8(±8.4) and 9.2(±5.3) minutes, respectively. Most (85.1%) physicians used verbal conversations and least (24.5%), video demonstrations of inhaler use; 56.8% agreed that patient attitudes influenced their treatment approach.
CONCLUSION: Physicians and patients have different views of 'well-controlled' asthma. Although physicians informed patients about asthma and inhaler usage, they overestimated actual usage and patients' knowledge was sub-optimal. Physician-patient interactions can be augmented with understanding of patient attitudes, visual aids and ancillary support to perform physical demonstrations to improve treatment outcomes.