Women and Asthma: Lessons from a Gender Analysis of the Asthma in Canada Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the degree of asthma control achieved by men and women with asthma in Canada and to explore differences in patient perspectives, treatments used, and health care resources used between men and women with asthma. DESIGN: Population-based cross-sectional telephone interview survey of Canadians with doctor-diagnosed asthma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Random digit dialing was used to identify a representative sample of Canadians with asthma. A total of 801 adults were interviewed over the telephone. Analysis was performed on the data from a subgroup of 20- to 50-year-old patients with asthma who participated in the original survey (329 women and 183 men). RESULTS: Women and men were equally likely to be poorly controlled (58% vs. 56%, p > 0.05) as defined by failing to meet two or more of six symptom-based criteria listed by the 1996 Canadian Asthma Consensus (CAC) Guidelines as appropriate treatment targets. However, there were significant differences in medication used; women were more likely than men to use an inhaled corticosteroid in the treatment of their asthma (59% vs. 45%, p < 0.05) and were more knowledgeable about their appropriate use (62% vs. 46%, p < 0.05), and were more likely to be satisfied with their physicians' care. Despite this, women were more likely than men to have required urgent care for their asthma in the year preceding the survey (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Women report greater need for urgent asthma care despite more frequent use of inhaled corticosteroids and better asthma knowledge scores than men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".