Controlo químico de infestantes

Uma planta é considerada infestante quando nasce espontaneamente num local e momento indesejados, podendo interferir negativamente com a cultura instalada. As infestantes competem com as culturas para o espaço, a luz, água e nutrientes, podendo atrasar e prejudicar as operações de colheita, depreciar o produto final e assegurarem a reinfestação nas culturas seguintes. Dado o modo de propagação diferenciado das diversas espécies de infestantes, com as anuais a propagarem-se por semente e as perenes ou vivazes a assegurarem a sua propagação através de órgãos vegetativos (rizomas, bolbos, tubérculos, etc.), assim, também o seu controlo quer químico, quer mecânico terá que ser diferenciado, ou seja, para controlar infestantes anuais será suficiente destruir a sua parte aérea, enquanto para controlar infestantes perenes teremos que destruir os seus órgãos reprodutivos. O controlo de infestantes poderá ser químico, através da utilização de herbicidas, ou mecânico pela utilização de alfaias agrícolas, tais como a charrua de aivecas, a charrua de discos, a grade de discos, o escarificador e a fresa. Quando a técnica utilizada na instalação das culturas é a sementeira directa, o controlo das infestantes terá que ser obrigatoriamente químico, enquanto se o recurso à mobilização do solo for a técnica mais utilizada (sistema de mobilização tradicional ou sistema de mobilização reduzida), o controlo das infestantes tanto poderá ser químico como mecânico. Neste trabalho iremos abordar apenas, o controlo químico de infestantes

Making data more meaningful: patients' views of the format and content of quality indicators comparing health care providers.

OBJECTIVE: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used to inform national quality indicators for health care providers in England. Our objective was to explore patients' views of different formats and content of these data displays. METHODS: Six focus groups (N = 45) considered different formats (tables, bar charts, caterpillar and funnel plots) and content (uncertainty displays, volume of outcomes, color, icons, and ordering). A thematic analysis was carried out based on transcripts. RESULTS: Tables housing icons (star ratings) were the preferred display, having the most popular resonance and facilitating cognitive processing, appealing to most as the best format. Inferred meanings were overwhelmingly applied to unfamiliar formats (funnel plot) and content (uncertainty). Traffic light highlighting and using consistent and recognizable icons (five stars) helped understanding. Familiarity with the bar chart seemed to lend to false readings--error bars were not interpreted. CONCLUSION: Aspects of familiarity, meaningfulness (whether and how displays resonated with participants), and cognitive or choice processes informed views of displays. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tables with star ratings should be a primary display, ordered on statistical significance, including providers in the region plus England average. Caterpillar plots should be used to provide contextual information. More detailed numeric tables should also be accessible

Clinicians' and patients' views of metrics of change derived from patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for comparing providers' performance of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to compare the performance of health care providers. Our objectives were to determine the relative frequency of use of different metrics that can be derived from PROMs, explore clinicians' and patients' views of the options available, and make recommendations. METHODS: First a rapid review of the literature on metrics derived from two generic (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS) and three disease-specific (Oxford Hip Score; Oxford Knee Score; Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire) PROMs was conducted. Next, the findings of the literature review were mapped onto our typology of metrics to determine their relative frequency of use, Finally, seven group meetings with surgical clinicians (n = 107) and six focus groups with patients (n = 45) were held which were audio-taped, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Only nine studies (9.3% of included papers) used metrics for comparing providers. These were derived from using either the follow-up PROM score (n = 3) or the change in score as an outcome (n = 5), both adjusted for pre-intervention score. There were no recorded uses of the proportion reaching a specified ('good') threshold and only two studies used the proportion reaching a minimally important difference (MID).Surgical clinicians wanted multiple outcomes, with most support expressed for the mean change in score, perceiving it to be more interpretable; there was also some support for the MID. For patients it was apparent that rather than the science behind these measures, the most important aspects were the use of language that would make the metrics personally meaningful and linking the metric to a familiar scale. CONCLUSIONS: For clinicians the recommended metrics are the mean change in score and the proportion achieving a MID, both adjusted for pre-intervention score. Both need to be clearly described and explained. For patients we recommend the proportion achieving a MID or proportion achieving a significant improvement in hip function, both adjusted for pre-intervention score

Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review

Purpose Displays comparing the performance of healthcare providers are largely based on commonsense. To review the literature on the impact of compositional format and content of quantitative data displays on people's comprehension, choice and preference.Data sources Ovid databases, expert recommendations and snowballing techniques.Study selection Evaluations of the impact of different formats (bar charts, tables and pictographs) and content (ordering, explanatory visual cues, etc.) of quantitative data displays meeting defined quality criteria.Data extraction Type of decision; decision-making domains; audiences; formats; content; methodology; findings.Results of data synthesis Most of the 30 studies used quantitative (n= 26) methods with patients or public groups (n= 28) rather than with professionals (n= 2). Bar charts were the most frequent format, followed by pictographs and tables.As regards format, tables and pictographs appeared better understood than bar charts despite the latter being preferred. Although accessible to less numerate and older populations, pictographs tended to lead to more risk avoidance. Tables appeared accessible to all. Aspects of content enhancing the impact of data displays included giving visual explanatory cues and contextual information while still attempting simplicity (�less is more�); ordering data; consistency. Icons rather than numbers were more user-friendly but could lead to over-estimation of risk. Uncertainty was not widely understood, nor well represented.Conclusions Though heterogeneous and limited in scope, there is sufficient research evidence to inform the presentation of quantitative data that compares the performance of healthcare providers. The impact of new formats, such as funnel plots, needs to be evaluated