Implementing Continuing Education Strategies for Family Physicians to Enhance Asthma Patients' Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the study was to provide asthma-related continuing medical education (CME) to family physicians with the objective of improving patient outcomes. Using a quasi-experimental design in a single community, the intervention included academic detailing, a case-based workshop, newsletters, medical grand rounds, and patient-centered education materials. Outcome measures included physician participation in CME; patient self-reported quality of life, asthma knowledge, asthma self-management, medication use, and health service utilization before and after the intervention; and physician feedback. Our results indicated that 78% of family physicians participated in one or more of the CME activities. The majority of physicians provided positive feedback on the use of the intervention both from their own and their patients' perspectives. Academic detailing increased the involvement of physicians in CME. We concluded that there was a statistically significant improvement in patients' quality of life, whereas changes in patients' knowledge, behavior, and health service use were positive but not statistically significant. Methodological factors are identified that could improve the effectiveness of future studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".