Inhaler therapy. What it means for children with asthma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate what inhaler therapy means for children with asthma and to identify problems and concerns children experience with inhalers. DESIGN: Qualitative research design. SETTING: A community-based family practice in rural Newfoundland. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen children, aged 5 to 16, who had been diagnosed with mild or moderate asthma and were being prescribed inhaled steroids or bronchodilators. METHOD: Two in-depth interviews with each of a purposive sample of participants were analyzed by the selective or highlighting approach. MAIN FINDINGS: Common positive themes were identified: inhalers were easy to use, and medication was necessary for good quality of life. Common negative themes were simply forgetting, inconvenient and annoying, only-as-needed approach, medication does not work well anyway, and side effects. CONCLUSION: Inhaler therapy had both positive and negative meaning for children. Although inhaled medications were seen as very important for good quality of life when taken regularly, most children wanted to use them only as needed for symptom control. Children knew the importance of inhaler therapy but still complied poorly.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".