Assessing asthma control in routine clinical practice: Use of the Royal College of Physicians '3 Questions'

47Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) '3 questions' in the assessment of asthma control. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Subjects (20 adults and 15 children) were assessed 2-weekly over 12 weeks, with data collection on RCP scores (yes/no for each question, 0-3), lung function, asthma control questionnaire (ACQ), asthma quality of life questionnaires (AQLQ), bronchodilator use, and exhaled nitric oxide level. Results: Between-subject analysis showed that the RCP score correlated strongly with the ACQ (correlation coefficient 0.79, p<0.001), AQLQ (-0.71, p=0.001) and bronchodilator use (0.52, p=0.02) in adults, although in children the correlations were weaker and non-significant. Within-subject analysis showed strong correlations between changes in the RCP score and ACQ score in adults (0.67, p<0.001) and children (0.61, p<0.001), between quality of life scores in adults (-0.67, p<0.001) and children (-0.69, p<0.001), and changes in bronchodilator use in adults (0.49, p<0.001) and children (0.48, p<0.001). Weaker or absent correlations existed with lung function and no correlations with exhaled nitric oxide levels. An RCP score of 1 or more identified 89% of occasions when the ACQ was >1. Conclusions: The RCP 3 questions reliably quantify current asthma control in this dataset, with a negative response to all 3 questions indicating good control. These data support the use of the 3 questions, but larger validation studies are needed. © 2009 General Practice Airways Group. All rights reserved.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thomas, M., Gruffydd-Jones, K., Stonham, C., Ward, S., & Macfarlane, T. (2009). Assessing asthma control in routine clinical practice: Use of the Royal College of Physicians “3 Questions.” Primary Care Respiratory Journal, 18(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.3132/pcrj.2008.00045

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free