A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Public Health Nurse‐Delivered Asthma Program to Elementary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood asthma is a serious and common chronic disease that requires the attention of nurses and other school personnel. Schools are often the first setting that children take the lead in managing their asthma. Often, children are ill prepared for this role. Our study evaluated a school-based, multifaceted asthma program that targeted students with asthma and the broader school community. METHODS: A randomized trial involving 130 schools with grades 1-5 and 1316 children with asthma and their families was conducted. Outcomes of interest for the child, at 1 year, were urgent care use and school absenteeism for asthma, inhaler technique, and quality of life, and for the school, at 14 months, were indicators of a supportive school environment. RESULTS: Improvements were observed at the child and school level for the intervention group. Fewer children in the intervention group had a school absence (50% vs 60%; p < .01), required urgent care for asthma (41% vs 51%; p < .0001), or reported a day of interrupted activity (51% vs 63%; p < .01), and had improved quality of life (5.8 ± 1.2 vs 5.4 ± 1.4; p < .0001). Schools in the intervention group were more likely to have practices supporting an asthma-friendly environment. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multifaceted school-based asthma program can lead to asthma-friendly schools that support children with asthma to be successful managers of their asthma and experience improved quality of life and decreased disease associated burden.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".