Usability of geographic information -- factors identified from qualitative analysis of task-focused user interviews.

Understanding user needs for geographic information and the factors which influence the usability of such information in diverse user contexts is an essential part of user centred development of information products. There is relatively little existing research focused on the design and usability of information products in general. This paper presents a research approach based on semi structured interviews with people working with geographic information on a day to day basis, to establish a reference base of qualitative data on user needs for geographic information with respect to context of use. From this reference data nine key categories of geographic information usability are identified and discussed in the context of limited existing research concerned with geographic information usability.

The Sandwell Project: a controlled evaluation of a programme of targeted screening for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A pilot cardiovascular disease prevention project was implemented in the inner-city West Midlands. It was evaluated by comparing its effectiveness to a control group where full implementation was delayed by a year. METHODS: Cardiovascular risk factor data were extracted on all untreated patients 35 to 74 years old from electronic medical databases in six general practices. A best estimate of ten-year CVD risk cardiovascular risk was calculated on all patients using the extracted risk factor data. Default risk-factor values were used for all missing risk factor data. High risk patients were thus identified. In four practices a project nurse systematically invited, assessed and referred high risk patients for treatment. Two control practices were provided with a list of their high risk patients. The outcomes were the proportions of untreated high-risk patients who were assessed, identified as eligible for treatment and treated under two strategies for identifying and treating such patients in primary care. RESULTS: Of all high-risk patients suitable for inclusion in the project, 40.6% (95% CI: 36.7 to 45.7%) of patients in intervention practices were started on treatment were started on at least one treatment, compared to 12.7% (95% CI: 9.8% to 16.1%) in control practices. CONCLUSION: A strategy using electronic primary care records to identify high risk patients for CVD prevention works best with a process for acting on information, ensuring patients are invited, assessed and treated.