Do Patients of Subspecialist Physicians Benefit from Written Asthma Action Plans?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Asthma clinical guidelines suggest written asthma action plans are essential for improving self-management and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of written instructions in the form of a written asthma action plan provided by subspecialist physicians as part of usual asthma care during office visits. METHODS: A total of 407 children and adults with persistent asthma receiving first-time care in pulmonary and allergy practices at 4 urban medical centers were randomized to receive either written instructions (n = 204) or no written instructions other than prescriptions (n = 203) from physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using written asthma action plan forms as a vehicle for providing self-management instructions did not have a significant effect on any of the primary outcomes: (1) asthma symptom frequency, (2) emergency visits, or (3) asthma quality of life from baseline to 12-month follow-up. Both groups showed similar and significant reductions in asthma symptom frequency (daytime symptoms [P < 0.0001], nocturnal symptoms [P < 0.0001], β-agonist use [P < 0.0001]). There was also a significant reduction in emergency visits for the intervention (P < 0.0001) and control (P < 0.0006) groups. There was significant improvement in asthma quality-of-life scores for adults (P < 0.0001) and pediatric caregivers (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that using a written asthma action plan form as a vehicle for providing asthma management instructions to patients with persistent asthma who are receiving subspecialty care for the first time confers no added benefit beyond subspecialty-based medical care and education for asthma. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00149461).
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 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".