Parent misperception of control in childhood/adolescent asthma: the Room to Breathe survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of our study was to determine how often asthma control is achieved in children and adolescents, and how asthma affects parents' and children's daily lives. Interviews, including the childhood asthma control test (C-ACT), were conducted with 1,284 parents of asthmatic children (aged 4-15 yrs), as well as with the children themselves (aged 8-15 yrs; n=943), in Canada, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, South Africa and the UK. Parents reported mild asthma attacks at least weekly in 11% of children, and serious attacks (requiring oral corticosteroids or hospitalisation) at least annually in 35%. Although 73% of parents described their child's asthma as mild or intermittent, 40% of children/adolescents had C-ACT scores ≤ 19, indicating inadequate control, and only 14.7% achieved complete Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)-defined control and just 9.2% achieved Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)/British Thoracic Society (BTS)-defined control. Guideline-defined asthma control was significantly less common than well-controlled asthma using the C-ACT (p<0.001). Asthma restricted the child's activities in 39% of families and caused lifestyle changes in 70%. Complete asthma control is uncommon in children worldwide. Guideline-defined control measures appear to be more stringent than those defined by C-ACT or families. Overall, parents underestimate their child's asthma severity and overestimate asthma control. This is a major potential barrier to successful asthma treatment in children.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".