Asthma Education Delivered in an Emergency Department and an Asthma Education Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implementation of asthma education in the emergency department (ED) setting is controversial. Time constraints and patient anxiety may be potential barriers to learning. This study aimed to describe the feasibility and impact of a brief evidence-based asthma education intervention delivered in the ED and an asthma education center (AEC) on asthma knowledge and perceived control. The educational intervention was easily integrated into routine care in the ED. Participants were similar except for age and current state of anxiety. At follow-up, both groups showed a significant increase in asthma knowledge (ED, n = 3.1, SD = 2.1, p < .01; AEC, n = 2.6, SD = 2.7, p = .01). Perceived control improved significantly in the ED (n = 2.6, SD = 3.9; p = .01). Despite higher state anxiety scores in the ED setting, a brief asthma educational intervention resulted in a short-term increase in asthma knowledge and perceived control. Asthma knowledge also increased after the intervention in the AEC setting. Educational initiatives are feasible and may be beneficial in an ED, providing an additional opportunity for counseling that should not be missed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".