Asthma in children: Management practices among paediatricians and family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the variation in asthma management practices among paediatricians and family physicians to determine how to improve care. DESIGN: Questionnaire study of paediatricians and family physicians that focused on the use of beta(2)-agonists, inhaled corticosteroids, patient asthma education, quantitative measurements of airflow and diagnostic investigations for asthma. Case scenarios were used in the questionnaire. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (415 of 632) among paediatricians and 42% (1156 of 2750) among family physicians. In general, both groups followed consensus guidelines. There were some differences in management practices among paediatricians and family physicians. Paediatricians were more likely to develop an action plan and less likely to use xanthines or inhaled anticholinergic agents. However, family physicians were more likely to use spirometry or home peak expiratory flow rates to make a diagnosis of asthma. CONCLUSION: Family physicians and paediatricians require a different focus on educational interventions to improve the care of children with asthma.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".