Effectiveness of Educational Interventions to Increase Primary Care Follow‐up for Adults Seen in the Emergency Department for Acute Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with asthma commonly present to emergency departments (ED) with exacerbations. Asthma guidelines recommend close follow-up with a primary care provider (PCP) after ED discharge; however, this linkage is often delayed or absent. The objective of this study was to assess whether ED-directed educational interventions improve office follow-up with PCPs after ED discharge for acute asthma. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in seven electronic databases (1946 to 2014). Randomized controlled clinical trials examining the effectiveness of educational interventions to increase office follow-up with a PCP were included. Study quality was determined using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; fidelity of the interventions was assessed using the Treatment Fidelity Assessment Grid. Using study data, risk ratios (RRs),and the number needed to treat for benefit (NNTB) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 427 potentially relevant studies, five (n = 825) were included. The overall risk of bias was unclear, and the description of intervention fidelity varied across the studies. Educational interventions targeting either patients or PCPs led to a greater likelihood of having primary care follow-up after ED discharge (RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.87; I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat for benefit was six (95% CI = 4 to 11). No significant benefit was observed in reductions of relapses (RR = 1.3; 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.98; I(2) = 23%) and admissions (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.24 to 1.06; I(2) = 0%). Due to the small number of studies for each comparison, publication bias was not formally assessed. CONCLUSIONS: ED-directed educational interventions targeting either patients or providers increase the chance of having office follow-up visits with PCPs after asthma exacerbations. Their impact on health-related outcomes (e.g., relapse and admissions) remains unclear.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".