Impact of Follow-Up by The Primary Care Or Specialist Physician on Pediatric Asthma Outcomes after An Emergency Department Visit: The Case of Montreal, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine follow-up practices subsequent to an emergency department (ED) visit for asthma in Montreal, Canada, among children 1–14 years old and the links to improved asthma outcomes. Appropriate asthma management enables better control of asthma and can lead to decrease in the risk of ED visits and repeated hospitalizations. Telephone interviews with parents of children aged 1–14 years old who had an ED visit for asthma (n = 267) were conducted 3 to 7 days after the index ED visit. Additional mailed questionnaires and interviews were conducted at 6 and 12 months after the index ED visit. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the impact of follow-up by the primary care provider or (PCP) specialist physician on ED visits and asthma control. One month after the index ED visit, 52% of 267 children had no PCP. This proportion decreased to 37% of the children who remained in the study after 1 year. One year after the index ED visit, 51% had had at least one subsequent ED visit and 25% showed poor asthma control. Children without a PCP at any assessment were more likely to have at least one other ED visit compared to those who had a PCP throughout the year. The children without a PCP were less likely overall to exhibit effective asthma control. This study raises concerns related to the high proportion of children with asthma without a PCP and the link to asthma outcomes. Therefore, it appears necessary to further explore the reasons for not having a PCP and find ways to promote better continuity of care. (Pediatr Asthma Allergy Immunol 2007; 20[1]:23–35.)
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".