Usability, Satisfaction, and Usefulness of an Illustrated Eczema Action Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An eczema action plan (EAP) is an individualized tool to help caregivers and patients self-manage eczema. While novel illustrated EAPs have been developed and validated, there is limited literature examining the value of EAPs from patient and caregiver perspectives. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to test the usability, satisfaction, and usefulness of our validated EAP from the perspective of patients and caregivers. METHODS: Consecutive patients from the pediatric dermatology clinic of a tertiary children's hospital from July 2016 to July 2017 were offered enrolment in a prospective survey study; informed consent was obtained from participants. The illustrated EAP was explained to the participant by a trained research assistant. Participants were sent electronic postvisit surveys using Likert scale questions via REDCap on EAP usability and satisfaction (9 items) as well as on usefulness (3 items). RESULTS: Of 233 consecutive clinic patients, 192 participants (82%) were enrolled, and 112 (58%; 85 caregivers and 22 patients) completed the postvisit surveys. Characteristics were similar between responders and nonresponders. Overall, participants rated the usability (96%), satisfaction (85%), and usefulness (78%) of the EAP positively. Education level, experience with eczema, previous dermatology consultation, and participant type (caregiver vs patient) did not significantly affect the usability or usefulness ratings. However, caregivers' overall EAP ratings were significantly higher ( P = .02) than the patients'. CONCLUSION: The caregivers and participants demonstrate that the EAP is a useful and highly usable tool. Future research should examine the effectiveness of EAP use on objective atopic dermatitis outcomes using a pragmatic clinical trial design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".