Outcomes of Asthma Education: Results of a Multisite Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This observational study compared the effectiveness of a standardized adult asthma education program administered in a variety of sites and practice settings on health care utilization, absenteeism, amount of leisure time missed and quality of life (using the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form 1.0 [SF-36]). METHODS: Seven asthma centres participated in an uncontrolled, multicentre, prospective, observational study using a pre-post design. Variables included hospital- and community-based centres, an academic hospital setting and the presence or absence of physician attendance. Trained asthma educators administered a guided self- management education program, and standardized questionnaires were used for patient assessment at baseline and six months after education. RESULTS: Of the 517 patients enrolled at baseline, 396 were eligible for the six-month follow-up. Follow-up data were available for 252 patients. SF-36 data were collected for 241 patients at six sites, with follow-up data available for 103 of 155 eligible patients. Asthma education was associated with substantial improvements in scheduled and unscheduled physician visits, unscheduled specialist visits, emergency department visits, hospital admissions, hospitalized days, missed work or school days and missed days of leisure time. There were also statistically significant improvements in all but one SF-36 domain. These improvements were comparable across all geographical sites and physical settings. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized asthma education appears to be effective when administered in a variety of practice settings, and may be associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes. The significant decline in health care utilization implies that substantial health care savings may occur as a result of the implementation of standardized asthma education programs.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".