New measure of parental asthma management for school-age children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new parent-completed questionnaire to measure parental asthma management was developed. The new questionnaire takes a parental perspective, with content of items and scoring focusing on all behaviors considered important by parents and not just those considered appropriate by clinicians. Parents of 101 school-age children with a previous hospital admission with asthma completed the questionnaire during home visits. The questionnaire was based on five asthma scenarios. Parents were asked to indicate on a 6-point Likert scale how likely they would be to carry out a series of behaviors if the situations occurred. Two methods of scoring were used: scenario-based scoring, and factor-based scoring. Scenario-based subscale scores suggested that parent's level of activity was consistent across different situations. Factor analysis showed that the questionnaire had three dominant factors. The medical assessment subscale describes parent's level of activity in terms of seeking medical care, the external advice subscale describes parent's level of activity in terms of seeking assistance from knowledgeable others, and the home management subscale describes parents' approaches to monitoring and treating children at home. Alpha coefficients for scenario-based and factor-based subscales indicated good internal reliability (0.65-0.84 and 0.81-0.91, respectively). Test-retest reliability, 4 weeks apart, was also adequate (correlation coefficients of 0.75-0.87). This exploratory study describes the development of a new questionnaire, the Asthma Management Questionnaire (AMQ). The questionnaire has a unique parent focus, consistent with contemporary notions of patient-centered chronic-disease management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".