Getting evidence into practice using an asthma desktop tool.

John Campbell; Sharon Campbell; Glenda Woodward

PubMed · 16489383

Getting evidence into practice using an asthma desktop tool.

John Campbell·Sharon Campbell·Glenda Woodward

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Failure to utilise evidence in asthma care is leading to avoidable asthma symptoms for sufferers and costs to health services. OBJECTIVE: This article describes a collaboration between a division of general practice and a university department of general practice to improve uptake of evidence based asthma treatments and to better educate patients. DISCUSSION: The division of general practice drew upon lessons from university based research within its locality producing an 'asthma desktop tool'. This combined evidence based clinical guidance for practitioners with educational information for patients in paper and electronic formats. The tool has been provided to all local general practices, hospitals and pharmacists to facilitate uptake of best practice guidelines and enhance patient knowledge and understanding. The division has directly responded to university based research producing a practical solution to some of the identified problems. This demonstrates that with appropriate resources and support, divisions are well placed to translate research into practice, and combine with academic institutions to produce worthwhile results.

Explore related subjects

Academic Medical Centers Asthma Cooperative Behavior Education, Medical, Continuing Emergency Service, Hospital Evidence-Based Medicine Family Practice Humans Patient Education as Topic Practice Guidelines as Topic Primary Health Care South Australia Teaching Materials Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

John Campbell, Sharon Campbell, Glenda Woodward. Getting evidence into practice using an asthma desktop tool.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16489383/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

The Shwartzman reaction repealed: an interview with Dr. Guido Sireci by Helene F. Rosenberg.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2007

Challenges in drug development for muscle disease: a stakeholders' meeting.

Current treatment benefits for patients with muscle disease are limited, but progress in legislative and scientific initiatives have set the stage for the development of new therapies. The MD-CARE Act (Public Law 107-84), which allocates federal resources to muscular dystrophy, was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States in 2001. This has shifted the emphasis toward translational research. To facilitate a push toward therapy for muscle disorders, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) sponsored a meeting with representatives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and academia. Each contributed in different ways. The FDA helped define the necessary data to support investigational new drug (IND) applications including the design of proof-of-principle studies, outcome measures for clinical trials, and the pathway for developing surrogate measures for fast-tracking promising new drugs. The NIH, other government agencies, and the MDA described potential funding sources for translational research. Industry delineated a complementary role with academia, and academic investigators elucidated the current strengths and weaknesses of available clinical endpoints. The meeting provided a format for communication for diverse disciplines that usually have no common meeting ground, helping to lay the foundation for bringing products to market in a timely fashion.

Academic Medical Centers↗

PubMed2007

Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Malaysia like many other countries worldwide uses spontaneous reporting systems as a mean of collecting data on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, compared to other countries, which use the system, the reporting rate in Malaysia is very low. Why some physicians do not report ADRs is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, which would predict physicians' failure to send ADR reports. DESIGN AND SETTING: Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire involving physicians working at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. RESULTS: About a third of the physicians in the Centre participated. Sixty-five of the 415 approached refused to participate. A high proportion of the respondents (81.4%) indicated that they had suspected an ADR but did not report it, while about 40% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the national reporting system in Malaysia. Logistic regression modelling identified the variable 'ADR considered to be too trivial or too well known to report' as the strongest predictor of not reporting, followed by physicians' category and uncertainty that the reaction had been definitely caused by a drug. CONCLUSION: Important predictor variables, which limit physicians from reporting ADR in Malaysia, were related to uncertainty of types of reaction to report, lack of awareness about the existence, function and purpose of national ADR reporting. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to improve the reporting rate.

Academic Medical Centers↗