Physician Asthma Management Practices in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish national baseline information on asthma management practices of physicians, to compare the reported practices with the Canadian Consensus recommendations and to identify results potentially useful for interventions that improve physician asthma management practices. DESIGN: National, stratified cross-sectional survey. SETTINGS: The 10 provinces and two territories of Canada, from 1996 to 1997. PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were sent to 4489 physicians stratified by province/territory and specialty group (family/general practice, respirology, internal medicine, pediatrics and allergy/immunology); 2605 responses were received. OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods for the diagnosis, treatment, education and follow-up of patients with asthma ('asthma management practices'). RESULTS: Significant variations existed among the five specialty groups in asthma management practices. A low use of objective measures of airflow limitation to assist with diagnosis was found among some respondents (mostly family physicians). Up to 40% of physicians regarded the daily fixed dosing (three or four times a day) of inhaled, short acting beta2-agonist as 'first-line therapy' for moderate to severe asthma. A minority of physicians reported using written action plans for patients or referring them to other health professionals for asthma education. Insufficient time during appointments and a perceived lack of appropriate educational materials were frequently cited as reasons for not providing asthma education. The perceived knowledge of the Canadian Consensus recommendations varied among physicians but was lowest among nonspecialists. CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed variations in certain aspects of the management of asthma by physicians. The findings will help to target specific areas for future physician education programs and other behavioural change strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".