Effect of educational and policy interventions on institutional utilization of wet nebulization respiratory drugs and portable inhalers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease treatment guidelines support the preferential use of portable inhalers (PIs) over wet nebulization (WN) respiratory therapy. Hospital- and community-based educational initiatives and a community-based provincial drug program policy change were previously implemented to promote the conversion of WN therapy to PI and spacer device use in Nova Scotia. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of these interventions on salbutamol, ipratropium bromide, and spacer device (Aerochamber) use at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre (QEII HSC). METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis of drug utilization data from August 1998 to July 2005. We used two intervention phases compared to the pre-intervention phase to determine whether the educational and policy interventions were associated with significant changes in monthly drug and spacer device utilization rates at the QEII HSC (1000-bed teaching hospital; Halifax, Nova Scotia). RESULTS: Salbutamol and ipratropium bromide PI use significantly increased in both intervention phases, compared to the pre-intervention phase. Mean (SD) defined daily doses/100 bed-days for salbutamol PI increased from 30.4 (0.4) in the pre-intervention phase to 34.6 (0.9) and 37.0 (0.4) in intervention phases I and II respectively (p<0.001 for both), and ipratropium bromide PI increased from 27.3 (3.5) to 32.8 (2.5) in intervention phase I (p=0.004) and 35.6 (3.5) in intervention phase II (p<0.001). However, a significant corresponding decrease was observed with salbutamol WN only. Mean (SD) Aerochamber units/100 bed-days significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Educational and policy interventions had limited effects on converting WN to PI use at the QEII HSC.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".