Advances in development and evaluation of asthma education programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Effective asthma education requires more than merely providing information on asthma. Behavior change and learning principles must be incorporated into educational programs. However, there remains much debate and research about the most effective strategies to educate people to deal effectively with their asthma. This article focuses on recent advances in theoretical and practical strategies and examines core elements of successful asthma education programs. RECENT FINDINGS: Asthma education has improved in recent years as a result of application of evidence-based, theoretical principles that guide learning and behavior modification. Many studies show a refreshing focus on how to teach and have made substantial contributions to testing educational theories and making meaningful improvements to those with asthma. Successful asthma education programs include behavior change strategies, shared care practices and communication skills, a clear educational process, tailoring to client needs and influencing factors, multiple teaching formats, and a continuum of care. SUMMARY: An array of effective and innovative asthma education programs have been developed and tested. However, numerous areas in asthma education require improvement and further research, such as real-world models, sensitivities to underserved populations or venues, innovative partnerships, continuum of care, and patient incentive/participation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".