Title |
Novel study design to assess the utility of the copd assessment test in a primary care setting
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, May 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-63 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Helen Marsden, Steve Holmes, Peter Kardos, Roger Escamilla, Roberto Dal Negro, June Roberts, Gilbert Nadeau, David Leather, Paul Jones |
Abstract |
The quality of a consultation provided by a physician can have a profound impact on the quality of care and patient engagement in treatment decisions. When the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) was developed, one of its aims was to aid the communication between physician and patient about the impact of COPD. We developed a novel study design to assess this in a primary care consultation. Primary care physicians across five countries in Europe conducted videoed consultations with six standardised COPD patients (played by trained actors) which had patient-specific issues that the physician needed to identify through questioning. Half the physicians saw the patients with the completed CAT, and half without. Independent assessors scored the physicians on their ability to identify and address the patient-specific issues, review standard COPD aspects, their understanding of the case and their overall performance. This novel study design presented many challenges which needed to be addressed to achieve an acceptable level of robustness to assess the utility of the CAT. This paper discusses these challenges and the measures adopted to eliminate or minimise their impact on the study results. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Brazil | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 8 | 22% |
Researcher | 7 | 19% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Unknown | 8 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 19% |
Social Sciences | 6 | 17% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
Psychology | 2 | 6% |
Other | 6 | 17% |
Unknown | 8 | 22% |