Back

Asthma diagnosis in school-age children: a survey among Swiss physicians

Guerra Buezo, B.; Sasaki, M.; Leuenberger, L. M.; Glick, S.; Gaillard, E. A.; Moeller, A.; Regamey, N.; Sutter, O.; Goutaki, M.; Kuehni, C. E.

2026-07-16 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.07.13.26357724 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines recommend objective tests to diagnose asthma in school-age children, but their availability and use in routine practice remain uncertain. We evaluated asthma diagnostic practices in Switzerland, focusing on first-line tests (spirometry, bronchodilator reversibility testing, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]). Methods: Cross-sectional, nationwide online survey of primary care paediatricians (PCPs) and respiratory specialists. We assessed access to and use of diagnostic tests, focusing on first-line tests, and examined reasons for non-use, referral practices, and guideline consultation. We used multivariable logistic regression to identified factors associated with spirometry access among PCPs. Results: Of 1,055 respondents, 625 diagnosed asthma in children, including 419 PCPs. Among PCPs, 50% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45-55) reported no access to spirometry and 95% (95% CI 92-97) no access to FeNO, whereas all paediatric respiratory specialists and almost all adult respiratory specialists had access to both tests. Barriers to first-line testing among PCPs included economic constraints and difficulties interpreting test results. Spirometry access was lower in French- and Italian-speaking regions than in German-speaking regions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.09, 95% CI 0.05-0.15), but higher among PCPs working full-time (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.11-3.82) and those using Swiss asthma guidelines (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.01-2.92). PCPs without spirometry access more frequently referred children to specialists for diagnostic confirmation (89% versus 80%; p=0.019). Conclusion: Many PCPs in Switzerland lack access to guideline-recommended tests. Improving access, reimbursement, and training in test interpretation may help reduce the gap between guidelines and clinical practice.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.