Patrones de acceso al Portal Web Guías de Práctica Clínica en Colombia
Patterns of access to the Guías de Práctica Clínica (Clinical Practice Guidelines) Web Portal in Colombia
Palabras clave:
Guías de práctica clínica como asunto, Internet, Difusión por la web, Navegador Web, Informática médica, Informática en Salud Pública (es)Practice Guidelines as Topic, Internet, Webcasts, Web Browser, Medical Informatics, Public Health Informatics (en)
Introducción. Las guías de práctica clínica colombianas para la atención sanitaria se difunden en el Portal Web del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social.
Objetivo. Analizar el tráfico del portal de guías clínicas a través de métricas de consulta web.
Materiales y métodos. Se realizó análisis del tráfico del portal en un periodo de 20 meses utilizando Google Analytics y Megalytic.
Resultados. Se registraron 190 115 ingresos, 125 475 (≈66%) fueron visitantes de primera vez y 63 118 (≈33%) usuarios repetidos. 126 994 usuarios visitaron 608 745 páginas, con un promedio de 3.2 páginas por sesión, tiempo de consulta de 3.45 minutos por visita y tasa de rebote promedio del 46.74%. 40% de los usuarios interactuó al menos con tres páginas y también 40% abandonaron el portal sin interactuar con una segunda página. Las sesiones se originaron desde Colombia, México, Perú y España, en el primero se presentaron 169 666 y Bogotá, D.C. registró el mayor número de visitas (32%), seguido de Medellín (12.3%), Cali (8.3%), Barranquilla (4.1%) y Bucaramanga (3.3%); estas cinco ciudades acumulan el 60% del tráfico. Las guías más visitadas fueron las de manejo de embarazo e infección de tracto urogenital.
Conclusiones. El portal presenta tráfico aceptable en los primeros 20 meses de funcionamiento. Se debe mantener un portal innovador que mejore la difusión de las guías.
Introduction: Colombian clinical practice guidelines for health care are published in the Web Portal of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection.
Objective: To analyze the traffic of the clinical guidelines portal through web consultation metrics.
Materials and methods: The website traffic analysis was performed over a period of 20 months using Google Analytics and Megalytic.
Results: 190 115 users logged in, and 125 475 of them (≈66%) were first-time visitors, while 63 118 (≈33%) were repeated users. 126 994 users visited 608 745 pages, with an average of 3.2 pages per session, query time of 3.45 minutes per visit and average rebound rate of 46.74%. 40% of users interacted with at least three pages and 40% left the site without interacting with a second page. The sessions originated in Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Spain; the first country represented 169 666 visits and Bogotá D.C. recorded the highest number of visits (32%), followed by Medellín (12.3%), Cali (8.3%), Barranquilla (4.1%) and Bucaramanga (3.3%), for a total of 60% of the traffic. The most visited guides were handling pregnancy and infection of the urogenital tract.
Conclusions: The portal had an acceptable traffic during the first 20 months of operation. An innovative portal that improves the dissemination of the guides must remain active.
Descargas
Citas
Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt G. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1995;274(7):570-4. http://doi.org/dn9rgw.
Gómez-Restrepo C. Guías de práctica clínica: ¿cuáles son sus alcances? Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2010[cited 2016 Dec 1];39(1):8-10. Available from: https://goo.gl/HV7soJ.
Mickan S, Burls A, Glasziou P. Patterns of ‘leakage’ in the utilisation of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Postgrad. Med. J. 2011;87(1032):670-9. http://doi.org/fcxr5j.
Francke A, Smit M, de Veer A, Mistiaen P. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta- review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008; 8(1):38. http://doi.org/btz7rb.
Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Bogotá, D.C.: Guías de Práctica Clínica GPC; 2013 [cited 2016 May 22]. Available from: https://goo.gl/F7ZXlA.
Colombia. Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Resolución 1441 de 2016 (abril 21): Por la cual se establecen los estándares, criterios y procedimientos para la habilitación de las Redes Integrales de Prestadores de Servicios de Salud y se dictan otras disposiciones. Bogotá, D.C.: Diario Oficial 49851; Abril 21 de 2016 [cited 2016 Dec2]. Available from: https://goo.gl/JOlmkt.
Marascuilo LA. Large-sample multiple comparisons. Psychol. Bull. 1966;65(5):280-90. http://doi.org/cqbb3n.
Vargas-Lorenzo I, Vázquez-Navarrete ML, Mogollón-Pérez AS. Acceso a la atención en salud en Colombia. Rev. Salud Pública. 2010;12(5):701-12. http://doi.org/b3drq9.
Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Wirtz VJ, Idrovo AJ, Angulo ML. Access to medicines among internally displaced and non-displaced people in urban areas in Colombia. Cad. Saude Publica. 2012;28(12):2245-56. http://doi.org/bt27.
Garcia-Subirats I, Vargas I, Mogollón-Pérez AS, DePaepe P, Ferreira- da Silva MR, Unger JP, et al. Barriers in access to healthcare in countries with different health systems. A cross-sectional study in municipalities of central Colombia and north-eastern Brazil. Soc. Sci. Med. 2014;106:204-13. http://doi.org/bt28.
Bilbao-sorio B, Dutta S, Lanvin B, editors. The Global Information Technology Report 2014. Geneve: World Economic Forum; 2014.
Tavera JF, Arias JE. Internet Móvil: Aceptación tecnológica para el cierre de la brecha digital en Colombia. Perf. de Coyunt. Econ. 2012 [cited 2016 Dec];(19):139-155. Available from: https://goo.gl/sUG7py.
Coady SA, Wagner E. Sharing individual level data from observational studies and clinical trials: a perspective from NHLBI. Trials. 2013;14:201. http://doi.org/bt29.
Kryworuchko J, Stacey D, Bai N, Graham N. Twelve years of clinical practice guideline development, dissemination and evaluation in Canada (1994 to 2005). Implement. Sci. 2009;4(1):49. http://doi.org/b49g6v.
Shao AF, Rambaud-Althaus C, Swai N, Kahama-Maro J, Genton B, D’Acremont V, et al. Can smartphones and tablets improve the management of childhood illness in Tanzania? A qualitative study from a primary health care worker’s perspective. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2015;15(1):135. http://doi.org/bt3b.
Marcano-Belisario J, Huckvale K, Greenfield G, Car J, Gunn LH. Smartphone and tablet self-management apps for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013;(27)11:CD010013. http://doi.org/bt3c.
Jay C, Brown A, Harper S. A ‘visual-centred’ mapping approach for improving access to Web 2.0 for people with visual impairments. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2011;6(2):97-107. http://doi.org/d8xfn6.
Son YJ, Jeong S, Kang BG, Kim SH, Lee SK. Visualization of e-Health Research Topics and Current Trends Using Social Network Analysis. Telemed. J. E. Health. 2015;21(5):436-42. http://doi.org/bt3d.
Yoon HJ, Tourassi G. Analysis of Online Social Networks to Understand Information Sharing Behaviors Through Social Cognitive Theory. Annu. ORNL Biomed. Sci. Eng. Cent. Conf. 2014;2014:1-4. http://doi.org/bt3f.
Miller EA, Pole A. Diagnosis blog: checking up on health blogs in the blogosphere. Am. J. Public Health. 2010;100(8):1514-9. http://doi.org/cqqpn6.
Boudry C. Web 2.0 applications in medicine: trends and topics in the literature. Med. 2 0. 2015;4(1):e2. http://doi.org/bt3g.
Tian H, Brimmer D, Lin JM, Tumpey AJ, Reeves WC. Web usage data as a means of evaluating public health messaging and outreach. J. Med. Internet Res. 2009;11(4):e52. http://doi.org/czw4dd.
Lopez A, Floudas C, Suárez F. Monitoring Twitter content related to Influenza-like-Illness in Spanish-speaking populations.. Emerging Health Threats Journal. 2011;4:11702. http://doi.org/fzg785.
Wood FB, Benson D, LaCroix EM, Siegel ER, Fariss S. Use of Internet audience measurement data to gauge market share for online health information services. J. Med. Internet Res. 2005;7(3):e31. http://doi.org/cdcj88.
Bardach NS, Hibbard JH, Greaves F, Dudley RA. Sources of traffic and visitors’ preferences regarding online public reports of quality: web analytics and online survey results. J. Med. Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e102. http://doi.org/bt3h.
Grandi F, Mandreoli F, Martoglia R. Efficient management of multi- version clinical guidelines. J. Biomed. Inform. 2012;45(6):1120-36. http://doi.org/bt3j.
Grimshaw J, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay C, Vale L, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol. Assess. 2004;8(6). http://doi.org/bt3k.
Pletneva N, Cruchet S, Simonet MA, Kajiwara M, Boyer C. Results of the 10th HON survey on health and medical internet use. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 2011;169:73-77. http://doi.org/bt3m.
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2017 Revista de la Facultad de Medicina

Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 3.0 Unported.
-