4.5 Article

Development of an electronic pictorial asthma action plan and its use in primary care

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 80, 期 1, 页码 141-146

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.040

关键词

Self-management; Asthma; Pictorial; Health literacy; Electronic plans; Primary care

资金

  1. British Lung Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Self-management education and the issuing of a written action plan improve outcomes for asthma. Many do not receive a plan and some cannot use the written word. We have developed an electronic pictorial asthma action plan (E-PAAP). Methods: A pictorial action plan was incorporated into a software package. 21 general practices were offered this tool and the software was loaded onto 63 desktop computers (46 GPs and 17 nurses). Usage was assessed and health care professionals questioned as to its use. Results: 190 plans had been printed in a 4-month period (17 for test purposes). The individual usage rate ranged from 0 to 28 plans. Doctors printed 73% (139/190) a mean of 3 per doctor and nurses printed 27% a mean of 2 per nurse (37/190). Excluding the test copies, 116/173(67%) were printed as picture and text together. Conclusion: Nearly half of all healthcare professionals used the E-PAAP software. Usage was skewed with some individuals using the software significantly more than others. The software package should help overcome problems of access to paper templates, by calculating peak flow action thresholds and by prompting correct completion. Barriers to the use of asthma action plans, such as perceived time constraints, persist. Practice implications: The development of an electronic asthma action plan facilitates health professional access to a basic template and prompts the user as to correct usage. It is to be hoped that such facilitation enhances the number of action plans issued and in this study GPs were greater users than the nurses. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据