Factors Associated with Poor Asthma Control in Children Aged Five to 13 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most children with asthma should be able to achieve acceptable control. However, are there differences between those with acceptable and poor control, and if so, how can health care approaches be modified accordingly? OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of elementary school children aged five to 13 years with acceptable and poor levels of asthma control. METHODS: The present cross-sectional study of children with asthma used five indicators of control, as outlined by the Canadian Asthma Consensus Report, to categorize acceptable and poor asthma control. RESULTS: Of 153 children, 115 (75%) were rated as having poorly controlled asthma. Of those with poor control, 65 (64%) children were currently using inhaled corticosteroids, and 65% of those reported using inhaled corticosteroids daily versus as needed. Fifty-one per cent of the children with poorly controlled asthma had exposure to tobacco smoke, whereas 79% of the children with asthma under acceptable control were from households with no smokers (P=0.002). The poor control group also had significantly worse parental perceptions of the psychosocial impact of asthma on their child. No significant difference was found in the percentage of those who had written action plans in the poor control group (28%) compared with the acceptable control group (26%), and similar percentages in each group stated that they used the plans. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high use of inhaled corticosteroids, the majority of children had poorly controlled asthma. The poor control group had more exposure to tobacco smoke and a worse psychosocial impact due to asthma. Few children had past asthma education and action plans, suggesting that there is a need to improve access to and tools for education.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".