Culturally Specific Evaluation of Inhaler Techniques in Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little work has been done on identifying the impact of educational materials developed by immigrant patients themselves, along with their caregivers and health professionals in terms of inhaler use technique. The purpose of this study was to evaluate understanding of physicians' instructions on asthma management and inhaler techniques in Punjabi and Chinese subjects using educational interventions in their native languages. METHODS: Eighty-seven subjects with asthma were randomly assigned to either one of 3 experimental groups (physician-led video, subject-generated community video, or both) or a control group (educational pamphlet). Medication knowledge and inhaler skills were measured during 3 in-person interviews. RESULTS: Subjects in all 3 experimental groups, when compared with control subjects, demonstrated improvements in the follow-up test in terms of ability to use inhalers correctly (P < .001) and understanding of physicians' instructions (P = .008). Chinese participants showed significantly greater improvements compared with Punjabi participants for the correct use of inhalers (P < .047), and females showed greater improvements compared with male subjects (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The educational interventions developed were successful in behavioral modification and beneficial beyond usual care in terms of improving proper use of inhalers and understanding of physicians' instructions. The findings can be translated to health education practice, promoting the development of short, simple, and culturally linguistically appropriate learning materials for patients. Such interventions that draw on patients' life experiences and socio-cultural context can overcome certain limitations of conventional patient education approaches. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01474928.).
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 | 0.000 | 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".