Asthma in Canada: perceptions and behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EUCAN AIM study was conducted to explore perceptions, behaviors and recent trends in asthma in 6 countries including Canada. Households were sampled by random dialing to identify adults and adolescents who had been diagnosed with asthma and had an asthma attack or symptoms in the past year or currently used asthma medications. In Canada, 7,405 households were screened and 401 (363 adults and 38 adolescents) asthmatics identified. Daytime, night-time and exercise symptoms were reported every day or most days in the past 4 weeks by 29%, 9% and 16% respectively. Over the past year, 49% had shortness of breath while sitting, 30% had episodes limiting their speech and 31% woke frequently. With flares, 45% saw a physician, 28% had an ER or unscheduled visit, while 30% took oral corticosteroids in the past year. One in ten felt their life was in danger from asthma. Despite this, 77% felt asthma was completely or well controlled. Controller medications were taken as needed by 18% and not used at all by 19%. Expectations were low as asthma was considered well controlled by 60% if they had only one ER visit per year, by 62% if they had 3-4 exacerbations per year and by 44% if relievers were needed 3 times per week. This survey suggests that inadequate control of asthma persists in Canada. Perceptions and behaviors of patients are not in line with current recommendations on asthma control and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".