Pediatric Asthma Action Plans: National Cross-Sectional Online Survey of Parents' Perceptions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Asthma Action Plans (AAPs) are recommended for pediatric patients to help improve asthma control. Studies have shown variable results for unscheduled doctor and emergency room visits. AAPs may have an impact on parental self-efficacy for asthma management as well as on other daily living factors that are valuable for patients and families, such as the number of missed school days and parental workdays, and on school and caregiver management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to understand parent perceptions of AAPs. The goals of this analysis were threefold, including examining (1) the association between pediatric AAPs and parental self-efficacy, (2) parent perceptions of the helpfulness of an AAP for daily living factors, and (3) associations with the type of provider who gave the AAP (a primary care provider or an asthma specialist). METHODS: A national cross-sectional online survey was completed in October 2018 by parents of children with asthma aged 0-17 years. Survey questions included the presence or absence of a pediatric AAP, the Bursch Parental Self-efficacy for Asthma scale, parental perceptions of the AAP's helpfulness with regard to daily living factors ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and the provider type who gave the AAP. Survey responses were summarized in terms of percentages or means and standard deviations. A 2-sample t test and analysis of covariance were used to compare self-efficacy for asthma and parental-perception-of-helpfulness scores between subjects with an AAP versus subjects without an AAP. All reported P values were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 704 parents with a child with asthma completed the survey. The parents had a mean age of 37.5 years (SD 10.9), and 82% (577/704) were women and 18% (127/704) were men. Most (564/704, 80%) parents had an AAP for their child; 65% (367/564) were written, 51% (286/564) were online, and 84% (474/564) were available at school. The Bursch Self-efficacy scale was significantly higher for parents with an AAP (mean 57.7, SD 8.6) versus no AAP (mean 55.1, SD 9.9; P<.001). Parents reported that they agreed/strongly agreed that an AAP was helpful for daily living factors, including managing asthma (446/544, 82%), decreased parental missed workdays (367/544, 68%), decreased child missed-school days (396/542, 73%), and for when a child is at school (422/541 78%), with other caregivers (434/543, 80%), doing normal activities (421/540 78%), and leading a normal life (437/540 81%). Parents agreed/strongly agreed that an AAP was helpful from all provider types: a pediatric provider (583/704, 82.8%), a family practice provider (556/704, 79%), and an asthma specialist (594/704, 84.4%). There was no significant difference (P=.53) between the type of provider who gave the AAP. CONCLUSIONS: Parents who had pediatric AAPs for their children reported increased parental self-efficacy compared to those who did not have AAPs. Parents found AAPs helpful for decreasing missed time from work and school, and for asthma management when at home, school, and with other caregivers. Significant AAP helpfulness was seen regardless of the provider who gave the AAP, the parent's education, and income level. Findings support the usefulness of pediatric AAPs for families and the development of easily sharable electronic AAPs for children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».