Action Plans in Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Action plans are recommended for most patients with persistent asthma to reduce the morbidity associated with this chronic disease. Unfortunately, despite these recommendations, this tool remains underused. METHODS: The authors conducted a descriptive study at the asthma clinic of a tertiary care centre to determine the number of asthmatic patients presenting to a respiratory physician (new reference or follow-up visit) who possessed an individualized, written action plan, and to evaluate the patients' level of confidence and perceived efficacy toward their plans. In addition, for all patients in the study, the level of confidence in and the perceived efficacy of three different action plans (two traditional tools versus a simplified tool) were compared. RESULTS: A total of 92 asthmatic patients were included in the study. Overall, 46% of the patients possessed an action plan. The patients' average level of confidence and perceived efficacy toward their action plans were high (4.1 out of five and 3.3 out of four, respectively). When the three different action plans were compared, the level of confidence in and perceived efficacy of the traditional tools were similar, both being superior to the simplified tool. CONCLUSION: The number of asthmatic patients who presented to the asthma clinic and who possessed an action plan was higher than the reported Canadian mean of 10%; however, most of the patients were treated by specialized respiratory physicians, which may explain this improvement. Considering that most patients with persistent asthma should have an individualized, written action plan, the present study confirms that this tool is still not used for all asthmatic patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".