Asthma Counselling Targeted to Removal of Domestic Animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To create and evaluate the efficacy of a short individualized educational intervention program, based on Prochaska's transtheoretical model, for a six-month period in a population of adult asthma patients living with domestic animals but sensitized to these pets. METHODS: A randomized, controlled study using a pretested questionnaire was conducted at three different times (pretest, and at three and six months postintervention). RESULTS: Eleven members (29%) of the intervention group and eight members (21%) of the control group removed their pets within six months (X(2)=3.23; P>0.35). The two groups showed similar improvements in their perception of the benefits of pet removal and in their level of belief that they could do it. The experimental group showed a greater improvement in knowledge acquisition about asthma and allergies than the control group (P<0.05). Both experimental and standard educational interventions were effective in facilitating progression through the stages of behavioural change. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results do not support the utility of behavioural change educational intervention, tailored to the transtheoretical model stage of the individual, in the context of convincing patients to remove their pets from their homes. However, the decision-making aid appears to be helpful in raising awareness of the problem of asthma and allergy in the patient, and in developing appropriate knowledge.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".