Barriers to the Recognition and Reporting of Occupational Asthma by Canadian Pulmonologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational asthma is a common, but probably under-recognized problem. OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors that suggest work-related asthma when a pulmonologist encounters an adult patient with new-onset asthma, and to identify the barriers to recognizing and reporting such cases. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to all pulmonologists in Canada. The questionnaire asked participants to respond to several questions about recognizing, diagnosing and reporting occupational asthma. Answers were scored using visual analogue scales. RESULTS: A total of 201 eligible responses were received from 458 pulmonologists. Pulmonologists identified that the most important factor in initially considering the role of work in occupational asthma was having seen others affected at the same workplace, or exposed to the same agent. Important perceived barriers to considering a diagnosis of occupational asthma were physicians' low awareness, lack of knowledge and time. The most important barriers to reporting cases were the pulmonologists' perceived patient concerns regarding job security and income. Quebec pulmonologists generally perceived barriers to recognizing and reporting occupational asthma to be less important, and believed that the use of specific inhalation challenge was more important in considering a diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonologists most readily recognized occupational asthma caused by a substance or process that they previously encountered as a possible cause of asthma. Time constraints and knowledge may hamper their ability to recognize occupational asthma. Concerns regarding the effect of the diagnosis on the patient's job and income may discourage reporting.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".