Asthma control in Canada: no improvement since we last looked in 1999.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether asthma control in Canada had improved since the last major survey in 1999 by exploring how well patients' asthma was controlled, how much they knew about asthma control, and how they used health care resources. DESIGN: National telephone survey of patients between April and August 2004. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred ninety-three adults 18 to 54 years old diagnosed with asthma more than 6 months before the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' control of their asthma, patients' knowledge about asthma, the frequency and duration of periods of worsening asthma, and patients' use of health care resources to manage those periods. RESULTS: In total, 26,210 households listed in a consumer database were contacted. Excluding ineligible households and households with a language barrier, a member of 13% of the households completed the 35-minute survey. Based on definitions in Canadian guidelines, 53% of patients had symptomatic uncontrolled asthma. In the previous year, almost all asthma patients had experienced worsening of symptoms that lasted on average 13.6 days for patients with uncontrolled asthma and 8.0 days for patients with controlled asthma (P < .02). Markedly more patients with uncontrolled asthma used health care resources for episodes of asthma than patients with controlled asthma did (72% vs 15% for urgent office visits, P < .01; 32% vs 3% for emergency department visits, P < .01; and 7% vs 0% for hospitalizations, P < .01) in the year before the survey. Patients were confused about the differences between reliever and controller medications. One third of patients claimed that no one had taught them about asthma medications, and one quarter said they had received no training on how to recognize the early signs of asthma worsening. CONCLUSION: Asthma control and management remained suboptimal in Canada and relatively unchanged since the previous major survey in 1999.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".