Asthma in Primary Care: Making Guidelines Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the views of family physicians regarding selected asthma recommendations from a Canadian practice guideline and the supporting evidence, and to identify issues needing further development if family physicians are to find guideline recommendations to be truly useful clinical tools. SETTING: Four urban communities in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty community family physicians representing different practice settings, and varying according to age and sex, were recruited to participate. DATA COLLECTION: Four focus groups were held, each lasting 2 h, at which recommendations from a published asthma guideline were presented for discussion on the applicability to their practices. The data were analyzed using a grounded theory method. RESULTS: Physicians rely on clinical judgment in lieu of objective measures in diagnosing asthma and resist treating every exacerbation with steroids. They thought that the recommendations on smoking and patient education should have been stronger or more prominent. Patient noncompliance limits the usefulness of home peak flow measures. Topics such as allergy assessment and most pharmacological therapies triggered little discussion. DISCUSSION: Asthma guideline developers and those interested in enhancing compliance with recommendations will need to attend to factors such as physician attitudes and beliefs on a variety of issues, including the use of objective measures and the availability of adequate resources to conduct the tests. Similarly, negative patient attitudes toward an increased use of corticosteroids suggest that a public education program would be most helpful regarding that group of recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".