Small-group, interactive education and the effect on asthma control by children and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective approaches to education about asthma need to be identified. We evaluated the impact on asthma control by children and their caregivers of an intervention involving small-group, interactive education about asthma. METHODS: We randomly assigned children who visited an emergency department for an exacerbation of asthma (n = 398) to either of 2 groups. Children assigned to the control group followed the usual care recommended by their primary care physician. Those assigned to the intervention group participated in a small-group, interactive program of education about asthma. We examined changes in the number of visits to the emergency department during the year after the intervention. RESULTS: During the year after enrolment, children in the intervention group made significantly fewer visits to the emergency department (0.45 visits per child) compared with those in the control group (0.75 visits per child) (p = 0.004). The likelihood of a child in the intervention group requiring emergency care was reduced by 38% (relative risk [RR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval CI 0.48-0.81, p = 0.004). Fewer courses of oral corticosteroids (0.63 per child) were required by children in the intervention group than by those in the control group (0.85 per child) (p = 0.006). We observed significant improvements in the symptom domain of the questionnaire on pediatric asthma quality-of-life (p = 0.03) and the activity domain of the questionnaire on caregivers' quality of life (p = 0.05). Parents of children in the intervention group missed less work because of their child's asthma after participating in the educational program (p = 0.04). No impact on hospital admissions was observed. INTERPRETATION: Education about asthma, especially in a small-group, interactive format, improved clinically important outcomes and overall care of children with asthma.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".