Asthma education: different viewpoints elicited by qualitative and quantitative methods

哮喘教育:定性和定量方法引发的不同观点

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This project began as a qualitative examination of how asthma education provided by health professionals could be improved. Unexpected qualitative findings regarding the use of Asthma Action Plans and the importance of insurance reimbursement for asthma education prompted further quantitative examination. METHODS: Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with primary care physicians in private practice who routinely provide initial diagnoses of asthma and focus groups were conducted with other clinicians in private primary care practices who routinely provide asthma education. Using the DocStyles quantitative tool two questions regarding Asthma Action Plans and insurance reimbursement were asked of a representative sample of physicians and other clinicians. RESULTS: The utility of Asthma Action Plans was questioned in the 2012 qualitative study. Qualitative findings also raised questions regarding whether reimbursement is the barrier to asthma education for patients performed by medical professionals it is thought to be. 2013 quantitative findings show that the majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as useful. The question of whether reimbursement is a barrier to providing asthma education to patients was not resolved by the quantitative data. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clinicians see Asthma Action Plans as a useful tool for patient education. Clinicians had less clear opinions on whether the lack of defined reimbursement codes acted as a barrier to asthma education. The study also provided useful audience data for design of new asthma educational tools developed by CDC.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。