“The Roaring Adventures of Puff” (RAP) – a school based asthma education program for children with asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asthma guidelines recognize asthma education as “an essential component of asthma therapy”. The Children’s Asthma Education Centre (CAEC)’s small group interactive sessions for children and families does not meet the needs of all families. Schools provide an opportunity for asthma education. The “Roaring Adventures of Puff” (RAP) is an effective, previously validated asthma education program. We conducted RAP as 6 weekly, one-hour sessions for 7-11 year old children in schools in Manitoba. Questionnaire data were collected for each child before and 6 months after RAP. The primary outcome parameter was school absenteeism, (year before vs. year after). Secondary outcomes included child and caregiver quality of life and caregiver work productivity. The study was conducted in 25 schools in Winnipeg and 2 rural schools (n=194 students pre- and n=177 students post-intervention). Data for the Winnipeg schools are complete. The reduction in the number of missed school days in the year following RAP was significant (p<0.05). Quality of life for both the child and the parent was significantly improved (p<0.001), as was productivity for the primary caregiver at home (p<0.05). (Table 1 ). A school-based asthma education program has significant and clinically relevant benefits for the child, family and school. We strongly encourage adoption of RAP as a school based education program for children with 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".