THE IMPACT OF A STRUCTURED PROGRAMME OF ASTHMA CARE IN GENERAL PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of a new GP programme of asthma care was examined using: a) a retrospective pre- and post-casenote survey of 400 asthma patients, comparing patients in practices using the health board programme (HBP) and other programmes (OP); and b) a patient satisfaction questionnaire, completed by 532 people on asthma clinic lists in HBP and OP practices. Outcomes assessed were health service use, perceived change in symptoms and asthma self-management. The casenote survey indicated improved health service use by patients in HBP practices, with fewer patient-initiated (p < 0.05), emergency (p < 0.05) and other chest-related attendances (p < 0.01) and increased clinic attendance (p < 0.05) post intervention. OP practices also showed reduced patient-initiated (p < 0.01) and increased asthma clinic use (p < 0.01). Increased use of management plans (p < 0.01) and peak flow diaries (p < 0.01) was noted post intervention for HBP practices. Responders to the questionnaire survey perceived that clinic attendance improved asthma symptoms, including severity and control, sleep disturbance and early morning wheeze. People in HBP practices were more likely than those in OP practices to possess a peak flow meter, a diary and a personal management plan (all p < 0.01 or above) but were not more likely to use a peak flow diary. Notwithstanding methodological difficulties in the selection of practices, both studies showed trends towards improvement in health service use and asthma self-management. The HBP was associated with greater improvement in self-management processes and outcomes, and greater patient satisfaction with asthma care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".