The role of written action plans in childhood asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this article is to examine the evidence for the effectiveness of a written action plan as an important element of guided self-management and to identify key features associated with its effectiveness in children and adolescents. RECENT FINDINGS: Various written action plans are available for use; however, few have been specifically designed or validated for children. Strong, but limited pediatric evidence confirms that the addition of a written action plan to guided self-management education significantly improves outcome. Use of daily controller medication, with no step-up therapy other than as needed inhaled beta2-agonist, best prevents asthma exacerbations. Symptom-based appear superior to peak-flow based written action plans. The paucity of pediatric trials does not permit the identification of other keys features that enhance the dispensing of written action plans by healthcare professionals or uptake of recommendations by children, adolescents and their parents. SUMMARY: Written action plans are effective tools to facilitate self-management. While step-up therapy is not superior to daily controller medication, symptom-based are superior to peak-flow based action plans for preventing exacerbations, other keys features associated with effectiveness have yet to be identified.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".