Written Action Plan in Pediatric Emergency Room Improves Asthma Prescribing, Adherence, and Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: An acute-care visit for asthma often signals a management failure. Although a written action plan is effective when combined with self-management education and regular medical review, its independent value remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: We examined the efficacy of providing a written action plan coupled with a prescription (WAP-P) to improve adherence to medications and other recommendations in a busy emergency department. METHODS: We randomized 219 children aged 1-17 years to receive WAP-P (n = 109) or unformatted prescription (UP) (n = 110). All received fluticasone and albuterol inhalers, fitted with dose counters, to use at the discretion of the emergency physician. The main outcome was adherence to fluticasone (use/prescribed × 100%) over 28 days. Secondary outcomes included pharmacy dispensation of oral corticosteroids, β(2)-agonist use, medical follow-up, asthma education, acute-care visits, and control. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although both groups showed a similar drop in adherence in the initial 14 days, adherence to fluticasone was significantly higher over Days 15-28 in children receiving WAP-P (mean group difference, 16.13% [2.09, 29.91]). More WAP-P than UP patients filled their oral corticosteroid prescription (relative risk, 1.31 [1.07, 1.60]) and were well-controlled at 28 days (1.39 [1.04, 1.86]). Compared with UP, use of WAP-P increased physicians' prescription of maintenance fluticasone (2.47 [1.53, 3.99]) and recommendation for medical follow-up (1.87 [1.48, 2.35]), without group differences in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of a written action plan significantly increased patient adherence to inhaled and oral corticosteroids and asthma control and physicians' recommendation for maintenance fluticasone and medical follow-up, supporting its independent value in the acute-care setting. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00381355).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".