The use of a work-related asthma screening questionnaire in a primary care asthma program: an intervention trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The work-related asthma screening questionnaire (long-version) (WRASQ(L)) is a 14-item tool designed to increase the recognition of work-related asthma (WRA) in primary care. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the WRASQ(L) provided additional information about a patient's likelihood of WRA, beyond what was collected in standard care, and to assess the use of the WRASQ(L) in the primary care setting. METHODS: This was an intervention study involving two Ontario primary care sites. Standard care for asthma patients in these sites involved completing the Asthma Care Map (ACM), a template for asthma management that includes seven WRA screening items. Participation in this study involved completing an electronic WRASQ(L) at each visit for participants and prompted care providers to record details related to WRA investigations. Ethics approval was obtained from an Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: The study sample (N = 37) was predominantly female (73.0%), with a mean age of 46.3 years (SD, 10.9). The use of WRASQ(L) identified additional work-related symptoms in 38% and exposures in 60% of participants over and above those identified by the ACM. Two participants were newly suspected of WRA during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The WRASQ(L) provided added information about possible WRA over standard care. The use of the questionnaire's results by care providers was limited due to barriers encountered in incorporating the use of electronic version of the WRASQ(L) into clinical practice. Once validated and implemented in practice, the WRASQ(L) has the potential to increase the recognition of WRA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".