Two for One: A Self‐Management Plan Coupled with a Prescription Sheet for Children with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite strong recommendations in the asthma guidelines, the use of written self-management plans remains low among asthmatic patients. OBJECTIVES: To develop a written self-management plan, based on scientific evidence and expert opinions, in a format intended to facilitate its dispensing by health care professionals, and to test the perception of its relevance and clarity by asthmatic children, adolescents and adults. METHODS: Inspired by previously tested self-management plans, surveys of asthma educators, expert opinions and the 2004 Canadian Asthma Guidelines, the authors simultaneously developed French and English versions of a written self-management plan that coupled with a prescription. The self-management plan was tested in parents and their asthmatic children (aged one to 17 years), and it was revised until 85% clarity and perceived relevance was achieved. RESULTS: Ninety-seven children and their parents were interviewed. Twenty per cent had a self-management plan. On the final revision, nearly all items were clear and perceived relevant by 85% or more of the interviewees. Two self-management plans were designed for clinics and acute care settings, respectively. The plans are divided into three control zones identified by symptoms with optional peak flow values and symbolized by traffic light colours. They are designed in triplicate format with a prescription slip, a medical chart copy and a patient copy. CONCLUSION: The written self-management plans, based on available scientific evidence and expert opinions, are clear and perceived to be relevant by children, adolescents and their parents. By incorporating the prescription and chart copies, they were designed to facilitate dispensing by physicians in both clinics and acute care settings.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".