目的:比较两种评估结果的方法,以评估哮喘控制专业教育计划的治疗干预措施的有效性。
方法:自然主义,干预研究,其中哮喘患者由参加特殊教育计划的临床医生(IG组)和接受仍在等待培训的临床医生的医疗援助的对照组(CG)参加。
方法:同一地区的五个城市初级保健保健中心。
方法:从100名患者的初始样本中,76形成了用于分析的最终样品。这项研究包括37名男性和39名女性,年龄在18至65岁之间(M=41.2岁)。除性别变量外,两个研究组均同质。
方法:临床治疗依从性培训计划。
方法:峰值流量作为肺活量指数,结构化面试。
方法:最初使用基于稳健方差分析模型的经典技术分析结果,然后通过计算可靠变化指数(RCI)。
结果:方差分析模型,每个性别分别进行,没有显着差异,由于样本量。RCI方法显示两组患者改善的百分比存在显着差异,以及单独观察到的临床相关变化。
结论:就有助于临床决策的经典分析方法而言,RCI方法被认为是一种有吸引力的替代方法。
OBJECTIVE: To compare two methods for the evaluation of outcomes to assess effectiveness of a therapeutic intervention of a professional education program on asthma control.
METHODS: A naturalistic, intervention study in which asthmatic patients were attended by clinicians (IG group) who Had taken part in a special education program and a control group (CG) that received medical assistance from clinicians still waiting to be trained.
METHODS: Five urban Primary Care Health Centres of the same region.
METHODS: From an initial sample of 100 patients, 76 formed the final sample for analysis. The study included 37 males and 39 females, aged between 18 and 65 years (M=41.2 years). The two study groups were found to be homogeneous except for the sex variable.
METHODS: Training program for clinical treatment adherence.
METHODS: Peak flow as spirometric index, and structured interview.
METHODS: The results were initially analysed using classical techniques based on robust ANOVA models, and then by calculating the Reliable Change Index (RCI).
RESULTS: ANOVA models, conducted separately for each sex, showed no significant differences, due to sample size. RCI methodology showed significant differences in the percentage of patients improved in both groups, as well as clinically relevant changes being observed individually.
CONCLUSIONS: The RCI method is presented as an attractive alternative as regards the classical methods of analysis that can help in the clinical decision.