RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Asthma action plans improve asthma outcomes and are recommended in guidelines. However, delivery by physicians and usage by patients remain low. This may be because of variability in existing plans and a failure to consider visual design and usability factors in plan development. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the variability in both the content and the format of existing plans, and the extent to which their format conforms to evidence-based visual design recommendations. METHODS: We collected plans from the internet, Canadian experts and associations, guidelines, and published trials. We inductively developed analytic criteria for format and content analyses. RESULTS: We collected 69 unique English or French-language adult outpatient plans from around the world. We found large variability in format, and plans fulfilled a mean of only 3.5 out of 8 evidence-based visual design recommendations. Content was also variable, including different descriptions of the baseline clinical state and descriptions and instructions at each "action point" (point recommending a change in treatment). CONCLUSION: Existing plans vary widely in content and format. Accordingly, studies evaluating the effectiveness of action plans may not be directly comparable. Also, visual design may affect usability, uptake, and effectiveness. Our results suggest that this has not been adequately addressed in most plans, and design evidence and experts should be included in future development.
Assuntos
Asma/epidemiologia , Nebulizadores e Vaporizadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Padrões de Prática Médica , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Canadá , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Atenção à Saúde , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do TratamentoAssuntos
Aprendizagem por Discriminação , Percepção de Forma , Leitura , Atenção , Humanos , Enquadramento PsicológicoRESUMO
The use of cluster analysis for the classification of patients into diagnostic groups remains controversial. Further evidence is provided for assessing the use of cluster analysis in comparison with other multivariate methods. It is suggested that, when appropriately used, cluster analysis is a convenient tool for developing empirically based diagnostic groupings and that the frequently stated limitations of the technique should not invalidate the obtained groupings in such cases.
