The Impact of Asthma Management Guideline Dissemination on the Control of Asthma in the Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of asthma management education on the control of asthma in the community. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study comparing three communities. SETTING: Three rural communities in southern Alberta. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A population sample of patients with asthma attending a pharmacy to fill a prescription for asthma medication were selected from three communities. Patients were asked to complete a questionnaire relating to their asthma management and control. INTERVENTION: Three levels of asthma management education were provided in the three communities with populations of 6000 to 10,000. The levels of education ranged from standard continuing medical education programs relating to the national asthma guidelines and a visiting asthma nurse educator to the establishment of an asthma clinic and a multiple-target, intensive education program for health professionals, town leaders, local media, schools and the public. The survey of the population with asthma was conducted approximately one year after the education program had been completed. RESULTS: A total of 327 completed questionnaires were submitted. Analysis showed that there was no significant difference that could be attributed to the intervention in the management of asthma or in the level of asthma control among the patients from the three communities. CONCLUSION: The more intense levels of education used to disseminate the content of the national asthma management guidelines did not translate into improved asthma control in the community.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".