Improving access to clinical practice guidelines with an interactive graphical interface using an iconic language

Graphical user interface design to improve understanding of the patient-reported outcome symptom response

BACKGROUND

Symptom monitoring application (SMA) has clinical benefits to cancer patients but patients experience difficulties in using it. Few studies have identified which types of graphical user interface (GUI) are preferred by cancer patients for using the SMA.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study aimed to identify preferred GUI among cancer patients to use SMA. Total of 199 patients were asked to evaluate 8 types of GUIs combining text, icon, illustration, and colors using mixed-methods. Subgroup analyses were performed according to age and gender.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 57 and 42.5% was male. The most preferred GUI was "Text + Icon + Color" (mean = 4.43), followed by "Text + Icon" (mean = 4.39). Older patients (≥ 60 years) preferred "Text + Icon" than younger patients (p for interaction < 0.01). Simple and intuitive text and icons were the most useful GUI for cancer patients to use the SMA.

CONCLUSION

Simple and intuitive text and icons were the most useful GUI for cancer patients to use the SMA. Researchers need to be careful when applying realistic face drawings to cancer symptom monitoring applications because they can recall negative images of cancer.

Guidelines for minimal report in gynaecologic sonography: Are they useful for emergency department resident physicians?

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF) guidelines on the minimal sonographic reports generated by emergency department resident physicians.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective observational study was conducted in the gynaecologic emergency unit of a teaching hospital from November 2016 to May 2017. We analysed sonographic reports generated by residents during gynaecological emergencies before and after training on the minimal report standards. An analysis of the evaluated items was carried out. We also compared residents according to their specialities and seniority.

RESULTS

A total of 240 reports were analysed, 120 before and 120 after the training. Half of the reports concerned women with an early pregnancy while the others concerned women with negative hCG. All residents significantly improved their practice after the training, as shown by the increase in ratings of the evaluated items (38 % before training vs 44.8 % after, p < 0.01). General practitioners had greater improvement (48.1 % of evaluated items), whereas older residents reported fewer items before or after the training (43.5 %) than younger residents. Finally, all residents improved their practice with a conclusion that followed the guidelines in 92.5 % of cases (versus 68.3 % before the training; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Training on the CNGOF minimal sonographic report guidelines significantly improved the emergency sonographic reports generated by residents. Wider dissemination of this training, particularly to young residents, would probably improve the quality of sonographic reports performed at gynaecological emergencies.