ArticleAtencion primaria2016
[Perceptions of patients and health professionals about the quality of care provided to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the understanding and knowledge of patients and health professionals about factors that influence the quality of care provided in Primary Care to people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).
designQualitative study performed between February and March 2010. LOCATION: Primary Care Centers.
participantsMedical and nursing professionals and patients with COPD.
methodsNon-probabilistic intentional sampling with representation criterion of the discourse. Two group (focus group) and 6 individual interviews were performed. The interviews were recorded, literally transcribed and interpreted by social discourse analysis.
resultsPatients neither identify properly the symptomatology nor they assume the COPD importance until advanced states. The lacks of knowledge about the evolution of the disease and the impact on quality of life hinders the necessary changes. Professionals reports problems with performing spirometry. Among doctors, scepticism regarding to the effectiveness of the interventions aimed at change of behaviour is identified. The existence of Clinical Guides, the improvement of the coordination between professionals and the alignment of priorities between managers and professionals stand out as organizational factors.
conclusionsThe identified factors suggest the possibility of improving the health care through improved communication to motivate them to take the recommended changes and to increase the adherence to treatments. To this effect, the awareness and training of professionals, the healthcare coordination, the implementation of Clinical Guides and the use of indicators in a process of quality assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.