Education interventions for adults who attend the emergency room for acute asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of educational and behavioural interventions in the management of chronic asthma have a strong evidence base. There may be a role for educative interventions following presentation in an emergency setting in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of educational interventions administered following an acute exacerbation of asthma leading to presentation in the emergency department. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Searches are current to November 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, parallel group trials were eligible if they recruited adults (> 17 years) who had presented at an emergency department with an acute asthma exacerbation. The intervention of interest was any educational intervention (for example, written asthma management plan). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 1954 adults were included. Education significantly reduced subsequent admission to hospital (relative risk 0.50; 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.91); however, did not significantly reduce the risk of re-presentation at emergency departments (ED) the study follow up (relative risk 0.69; 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.21). The lack of statistically significant differences between asthma education and control groups in terms of peak flow, quality of life, study withdrawal and days lost were hard to interpret given the low number of studies contributing to these outcomes. One study from the early 1990s measured cost and found no difference for total costs and costs related to physician visits and admissions to hospital. If data were restricted to emergency department treatment, education led to lower costs than control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found that educational interventions applied in the emergency department reduce subsequent asthma admissions to hospital. The interventions did not significantly reduce ED re-presentations; while the trend in effect favours educational interventions, the pooled results were not statistically significant. The impact of educational intervention in this context on longer term outcomes relating to asthma morbidity is unclear. Priorities for additional research in this area include assessment of health-related quality of life, lung function assessment, exploration of the relationship between socio-economic status and asthma morbidity, and better description of the intervention assessed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".