The principal investigator and three general practitioners supervised the data collection process.
Altogether 181 general practitioners collected the data during two workweeks in April 2005.
Another limitation was that the exposure frequency might also have been underestimated because contracted Taiwan National Health Insurance TNHII) practitioners collected the data from the head CT database, excluding non-TNHI data (including self-paying patients).
The nurse practitioner studied the data and classified the asthma following a stepwise intervention protocol.
Two trained infection control practitioners (ICP), collected the data using standardised electronic case record forms.
Two experienced researchers reviewed the medical records, both of whom received training on reading medical records from a qualified practitioner before starting the data extraction.
This understanding leads to underappreciation of the values typical to each discipline as well as the beliefs of the individual practitioner that influence the data gathering and interpretation [ 5].
In Italy, a FRAX®-derived algorithm called FRAHS was recently developed for risk assessment by general practitioners [88], based on the data from a large Italian population collected by general practitioners.
For such an economic evaluation we will use data on health care use as recorded in the information system of the general practitioners, and data recorded with the SF-HLQ and the EQ5D (see above).
Sixty-three percent (12 studies) automatically pre-populated the EMR data [ 35– 43, 44, 46, 46, 50, 53], 26% (5 studies) relied on practitioners to manually enter the data [ 42, 47– 49, 52], 16% (3 studies) relied on research staff [ 44, 45, 51] and 21% (4 studies) relied on patients as well for data inputs [ 36– 38, 42].
