Improving Asthma Control in the Rural Setting: The BREATHE (Better Respiratory Education and Asthma Treatment in Hinton and Edson) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Overuse of β-agonists is a risk factor for poor control of asthma. Pharmacists can identify high-risk patients through refill information and can then initiate disease-management programs for these patients. Methods: The Better Respiratory Education and Asthma Treatment in Hinton and Edson (BREATHE) study was a randomized, controlled trial in high-risk asthma patients. The intervention included an educational program (with focus on development of a written action plan), assessment of asthma therapy, and referral to a respiratory therapist and primary care physician. The primary objective was to determine the effect of this program (initiated by community pharmacists) on asthma control, as measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Secondary objectives included determining the effect of the program on numbers of emergency department visits and hospital admissions, use of inhaled corticosteroids, courses of oral steroids, and lung function. Endpoints were measured at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. Results: A total of 70 patients were randomized (34 to usual care, 36 to the intervention). At 6 months, there was no significant difference in asthma control between the usual care and inter-vention groups (change in ACQ score 0.33 and 0.43 respectively, p = 0.66). There were no significant differences in the secondary endpoints. Generally, pharmacist compliance with the intervention was poor. Conclusions: Although no differences were found in asthma control, this model, which uses a multidisciplinary, community-based approach, offers a unique management strategy for rural asthma patients. Can Pharm J 2006;139(4):44–50.
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 | 0.001 | 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".