Exercise-Induced Asthma Knowledge among Coaches of the Special Olympics National Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests that adults with an intellectual disability (ID) who have asthma worry about side-effects of using medications and do not like using their inhalers in public due to stigma. This is problematic, particularly for athletes, as medication needs to be taken 10-15 minutes prior to exercise. Further, research indicates that adults with ID may not be using their inhalers properly. Thus, coaches may need to assist with ensuring appropriate use of inhalers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether Special Olympics coaches know how to manage their athlete’s asthma effectively. METHODS: Coaches were asked to complete a short survey anonymously while attending training camp with their athletes. The survey consisted of 11 true or false statements regarding asthma, three questions on symptoms, triggers, and preventive techniques, and six yes/no questions on their athletes asthma status, their comfort and confidence in dealing with an athlete having an attack, and their emergency action plan (related to asthma). Twenty seven coaches completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: On average, coaches got 3.9 ± 1.6 of the true/false statements incorrect. However, they generally identified correct triggers, symptoms and preventive techniques. Less than half of the coaches felt confident dealing with an asthma attack if their athlete had one while playing their sport. Only 5 coaches had received training to prepare them for working with an athlete with asthma and only 9 coaches had an emergency action plan to deal with an asthma attack. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate a need for asthma related training for Special Olympics coaches.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".