Satisfaction and helpfulness of the MN FluLine among those who completed a nurse protocol and those who did not complete the nurse protocol.

<p>Satisfaction and helpfulness of the MN FluLine among those who completed a nurse protocol and those who did not complete the nurse protocol.</p

Sample of qualitative responses categorized as positive, neutral, or negative with respect to the MN FluLine.

*<p>Trade name for oseltamivir.</p

Demographics and evaluation survey question responses those who completed the nurse protocol and those that did not complete the nurse protocol.

*<p>N = 275 as patients were allowed to choose whether to answer this question.</p>†<p>N = 12 as patients were allowed to choose whether to answer this question.</p>–<p>Blank indicates that this question was not asked of that survey group.</p>§<p>Based on N = 63 who responded they were not able to follow the recommendation.</p>‡<p>Trade name for oseltamivir. Trade name was chosen as this was likely more recognizable to survey participants.</p>**<p>Based on N = 62 for the completed group and N = 2 for the did not complete group who were advised to take oseltamivir (Tamiflu).</p

MN FluLine callers to the contract NTL from October 2009 through February 2010 who began the nurse protocol and those who participated in the evaluation survey.

<p>Callers during the month of March (n = 38) were excluded as data was incomplete at the time of randomization. There were a total of 27,391 callers to the MN FluLine, of which 13,958 reported symptoms of ILI. Of these 3,799 were transferred to a partner NTL. Data was not available from these callers to be able to contact them for this survey. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0050492#pone.0050492-Spaulding1" target="_blank">[13]</a>.</p

List of evaluation survey questions for both evaluation survey groups.

*<p>Trade name for oseltamivir. Trade name was chosen as this was likely more recognizable to survey participants.</p