Urban and rural differences in the management of asthma amongst primary care physicians in Alberta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconsistencies in rural and urban health care exist; however, little has been done to evaluate the potential differences in asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma management in rural versus urban primary care physician practices. METHODS: Forty-two of 136 consenting primary care physicians were randomly selected for chart review. The charts of 3072 patients diagnosed with asthma based on the ICD-9 Classification of Diseases were reviewed. RESULTS: Standards of asthma care were compared between rural and urban primary care physicians. 2671 patients (87%) were cared for by urban physicians and 401 patients (13%) by rural physicians. Greater proportions of male and pediatric patients were found in the rural group. Rural patients made more emergency department or hospital visits than urban patients. Rural physicians performed more pulmonary function tests and made more referrals to other healthcare specialists. Urban patients had more asthma symptoms and triggers documented and used peak flow monitoring more often. Urban physicians provided more asthma education and prescribed more oral corticosteroids and antibiotics. Overall, rates of referral, use of spirometry and use of written action plans were low globally. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that the management of asthma in the rural settings is comparable to that of urban settings. Improvements in the areas of pulmonary function testing, asthma education and use of written action plans are necessary in both settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".