scholarly journals The Quality of Instructional YouTube Videos for the Administration of Intranasal Spray: Observational Study

10.2196/23668 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. e23668
Author(s):  
Marije M Peters-Geven ◽  
Corine Rollema ◽  
Esther I Metting ◽  
Eric N van Roon ◽  
Tjalling W de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Neutral Position ◽  
Self Administration ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Intranasal Spray

Background Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder affecting both children and adults. Recommended treatment consists of intranasal corticosteroid spray administration, but only few patients administer the nasal spray in the correct technical manner. A wrong administration technique may result in side effects and affect the efficacy and adherence, thus making accurate administration instructions indispensable. Unfortunately, information about intranasal drug administration is generally not explained accurately, thereby leading to confusion among patients and inaccuracy in the self-administration of drugs. Objective In this study, we analyzed instructional videos available on YouTube for the administration of nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis. Our aim was to determine if the videos provided instructions in accordance with the standardized nationwide patient protocol in the Netherlands for intranasal spray administration. Methods Instructional videos for the administration of aqueous formulations of nasal spray for allergic rhinitis were found on YouTube. All videos were reviewed by 2 researchers and scored using the instructions from the Dutch standardized protocol. Correct instructions were given a score of 1, while incorrect or missing instructions were given a score of 0. The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was used to determine the differences in the scores between the researchers. Results We identified 33 YouTube videos made by different health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies around the world. None of the videos displayed all the steps correctly, while 5 of the 33 (15%) videos displayed over 75% of the steps correctly. The median score of the correctly displayed steps was 11 out of 19 (range 2-17, IQR 6). The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was statistically significant (range 0.872-1.00, P<.001). The steps “neutral position of the head,” “breathing out through the mouth,” and “periodically cleaning with water” scored the lowest and were incorrectly displayed in 28 (85%), 28 (85%), and 30 (91%) of the 33 videos, respectively. Conclusions The findings of our study revealed that only few instructional videos on YouTube provided correct instructions for the administration of nasal sprays to patients. The inaccuracy of the instructions for nasal spray administration in the majority of the videos may lead to confusion in patients and incorrect use of nasal sprays. In the future, it is important to make evidence-based instructional videos that show patients the correct technique of nasal spray administration. Trial Registration Not applicable

scholarly journals The Quality of Instructional YouTube Videos for the Administration of Intranasal Spray: Observational Study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marije M Peters-Geven ◽  
Corine Rollema ◽  
Esther I Metting ◽  
Eric N van Roon ◽  
Tjalling W de Vries
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Neutral Position ◽  
Self Administration ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Youtube Videos ◽  
Intranasal Spray

BACKGROUND Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder affecting both children and adults. Recommended treatment consists of intranasal corticosteroid spray administration, but only few patients administer the nasal spray in the correct technical manner. A wrong administration technique may result in side effects and affect the efficacy and adherence, thus making accurate administration instructions indispensable. Unfortunately, information about intranasal drug administration is generally not explained accurately, thereby leading to confusion among patients and inaccuracy in the self-administration of drugs. OBJECTIVE In this study, we analyzed instructional videos available on YouTube for the administration of nasal sprays for allergic rhinitis. Our aim was to determine if the videos provided instructions in accordance with the standardized nationwide patient protocol in the Netherlands for intranasal spray administration. METHODS Instructional videos for the administration of aqueous formulations of nasal spray for allergic rhinitis were found on YouTube. All videos were reviewed by 2 researchers and scored using the instructions from the Dutch standardized protocol. Correct instructions were given a score of 1, while incorrect or missing instructions were given a score of 0. The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was used to determine the differences in the scores between the researchers. RESULTS We identified 33 YouTube videos made by different health care professionals and pharmaceutical companies around the world. None of the videos displayed all the steps correctly, while 5 of the 33 (15%) videos displayed over 75% of the steps correctly. The median score of the correctly displayed steps was 11 out of 19 (range 2-17, IQR 6). The interrater reliability using Cohen ĸ was statistically significant (range 0.872-1.00, <i>P</i>&lt;.001)<i>.</i> The steps “neutral position of the head,” “breathing out through the mouth,” and “periodically cleaning with water” scored the lowest and were incorrectly displayed in 28 (85%), 28 (85%), and 30 (91%) of the 33 videos, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The findings of our study revealed that only few instructional videos on YouTube provided correct instructions for the administration of nasal sprays to patients. The inaccuracy of the instructions for nasal spray administration in the majority of the videos may lead to confusion in patients and incorrect use of nasal sprays. In the future, it is important to make evidence-based instructional videos that show patients the correct technique of nasal spray administration. CLINICALTRIAL Not applicable

scholarly journals A Patient Preference Study that Evaluated Fluticasone Furoate and Mometasone Furoate Nasal Sprays for Allergic Rhinitis

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. ar.2016.7.0185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anahi Yanez ◽  
Alex Dimitroff ◽  
Peter Bremner ◽  
Chae-Seo Rhee ◽  
Graham Luscombe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Patient Preference ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Sensory Attributes ◽  
Mometasone Furoate ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Fluticasone Furoate ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Nasal Irritation

Background Corticosteroid nasal sprays are the mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis. These sprays have sensory attributes such as scent and/or odor, taste and aftertaste, and run down the throat and/or the nose, which, when unpleasant, can affect patient preference for, and compliance with, treatment. Objective This study examined patient preference for fluticasone furoate nasal spray (FFNS) or mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) based on their sensory attributes after administration in patients with allergic rhinitis. Methods This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patient preferences were determined by using three questionnaires (Overall Preference, Immediate Attributes, and Delayed Attributes). Results Overall, 56% of patients stated a preference for FFNS versus 32% for MFNS (p < 0.001); the remaining 12% stated no preference. More patients stated a preference for FFNS versus MFNS for the attributes of “less drip down the throat” (p < 0.001), “less run out of the nose” (p < 0.05), “more soothing” (p < 0.05), and “less irritating” (p < 0.001). More patients responded in favor of FFNS versus MFNS for the immediate attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), and “run out of the nose” (p < 0.001), and, in the delayed attributes, “run down the throat” (p < 0.001), “run out of the nose” (p < 0.01), “presence of aftertaste” (p < 0.01), and “no nasal irritation” (p < 0.001). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis preferred FFNS versus MFNS overall and based on a number of individual attributes, including “less drip down the throat,” “less run out of the nose,” and “less irritating.” Greater preference may improve patient adherence and thereby improve symptom management of the patient's allergic rhinitis.

scholarly journals Efficacy and tolerability of levocabastine and azelastine nasal sprays for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. S11-S15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Mösges ◽  
Joachim Spaeth ◽  
Ludger Klimek
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Therapeutic Efficacy ◽  
Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Symptomatic Relief ◽  
Topical Therapy ◽  
Application Site ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Onset Of Action ◽  
Nasal Sprays

Levocabastine and azelastine are currently the only antihistamines available as nasal sprays for the topical therapy of seasonal allergic rhinitis. The present study was undertaken to compare the onset of action, efficacy and tolerability of these two agents in a total of 242 patients with this condition. This was an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized, parallel-group trial with 123 patients treated with levocabastine (0.5 mg/ml, two puffs per nostril twice daily) and 119 with azelastine (1 mg/ml, one puff per nostril twice daily). Onset of action was comparable for the two drugs with over 50% of patients in each group reporting significant symptomatic relief within 30 min of administration of the first dose of study medication. Therapeutic efficacy was also found to be comparable in the two groups with no statistically significant intergroup differences reported for any of the parameters evaluated, although assessments of global therapeutic efficacy revealed a trend favouring levocabastine. Levocabastine appeared to be better tolerated than azelastine (p = 0.06), with the incidence of the most common adverse experiences, application site reactions and taste disturbances, significantly higher on azelastine than with levocabastine (5% versus 1%; p = 0.05 and 5% versus 0%; p = 0.01, respectively). In conclusion, levocabastine nasal spray appears to be at least as effective as, but better tolerated than, azelastine nasal spray for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

scholarly journals A comparative study to assess the efficacy of fluticasone and mometasone in allergic rhinitis

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 1587
Author(s):  
Waqar Ul Hamid ◽  
Deepshikha Sumbria ◽  
Ihsan Ali ◽  
Rauf Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Allergic Diseases ◽  
Therapeutic Benefit ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
The Difference

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent of allergic diseases in the world. Pharmacotherapy remains the mainstay of treatment.  Nasal corticosteroids being the most applicable drugs for its treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis based on total nasal symptom score (TNSS) questionnaire.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> A prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, comparative study was conducted among 80 allergic rhinitis patients fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were randomly assigned to two groups: FP and MF groups. FP group received 200 µg dose of FP nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily and the MF group received 100 µg dose of MF nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily for 8 weeks. The effects of the two agents were compared based on TNSS questionnaire in 0, 4 and 8 weeks after the beginning of the treatment.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> At the end of eight weeks of treatment, both groups showed statistically significant (p&lt;0.005) improvements from their baseline TNSS. Mean TNSS was reduced from to 9.46 to 2.716 in FP group and from 10.18 to 2.504 in MF group.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Both the groups showed a significant therapeutic benefit in patients with allergic rhinitis. Even though, the difference between the two is not significant for 8 weeks therapy.   </p>

scholarly journals COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFICACY OF MOMETASONE AND FLUTICASONE NASAL SPRAYS FOR TREATMENT OF ALLERGIC RHINITIS

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 211
Author(s):  
Mahshid Sadat Mirmoezzi ◽  
Mohammad Shurideh Yazdi ◽  
Omid Gholami
Keyword(s):  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Nasal Spray ◽  
Allergic Diseases ◽  
Nasal Symptom ◽  
P Value ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Prick Test ◽  
Nasal Sprays ◽  
Total Nasal Symptom Score ◽  
The Difference

Objective: Allergic rhinitis is the most prevalent of allergic diseases in the world. Nasal corticosteroids are the most applicable drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In this study, we compared the efficacy of fluticasone propionate (FP) and mometasone furoate (MF) nasal sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis based on total nasal symptom score (TNSS) questionnaire.Methods: For this study, 75 allergic rhinitis patients based on skin prick test and inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to two groups: FP and MF groups. FP group received 200 µg dose of FP nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily and the MF group received 100 mg dose of MF nasal spray (1 spray/nostril) daily for 8 w. The effects of the two agents were compared based on TNSS questionnaire in 0, 4 and 8 w after the beginning of the treatment.Results: Results showed that patients in both groups exhibited significant improvement in their TNSS (P Value<0.001). A detailed TNSS analysis showed MF to be more effective for relieving all symptoms than FP. The most difference is in decreasing postnasal discharge (PND) symptom. However, the difference for relieving all symptoms is not significant (P value>0.05).Conclusion: In conclusion, FP and MF are significantly effective in relieving of allergic rhinitis symptoms. Even though, the difference between the two is not significant for 8 w therapy. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document