Do the British Guidelines for Asthma Management facilitate concordance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma is an example of a common, chronic illness in which clinicians are encouraged to promote concordance and adhere to guidelines. Some existing research suggests that these aims may be incompatible. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient goals for life and for asthma management in order to inform concordance with people with asthma. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, qualitative survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 47 adults with asthma from Dundee, UK. The subjects were identified from general practice asthma registers and had a range of ages and asthma severity but no significant comorbidity. METHODS: Tape-recorded semi-structured interviews. The topic guide was based on the literature and had been piloted in a previous study. RESULTS: The participants focussed on improving their lives, only aiming to improve their asthma as a means of improving their lives. Three aspects of asthma were reported to help or hinder improving life: the use of asthma medication, trigger avoidance and exercise. People integrated these three aspects of asthma in order to maximize life. CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the more individualized goals of the recently revised British Guidelines for Asthma Management but highlights the need to develop this further in future revisions. It also provides an explanation for patients' acceptance of less than 'perfect' asthma control and it suggests that shared goals may be achieved in practice by considering the advantages and disadvantages of medication and allergen avoidance on everyday life rather than on asthma.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".