| Title |
Developing novel evidence-based interventions to promote asthma action plan use: a cross-study synthesis of evidence from randomised controlled trials and qualitative studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-13-216 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Ring, Ruth Jepson, Hilary Pinnock, Caroline Wilson, Gaylor Hoskins, Sally Wyke, Aziz Sheikh |
| Abstract |
Long-standing randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence indicates that asthma action plans can improve patient outcomes. Internationally, however, these plans are seldom issued by professionals or used by patients/carers. To understand how the benefits of such plans might be realised clinically, we previously investigated barriers and facilitators to their implementation in a systematic review of relevant RCTs and synthesised qualitative studies exploring professional and patient/carer views. Our final step was to integrate these two separate studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 29% |
| Argentina | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 86% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 9% |
| Librarian | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 23% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 18% |