72 Real Life Attitudes toward Treatment of Pediatric Allergic Rhinitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) is common and increasingly a chronic morbidity affecting both quality of life and child learning. Compliance to intranasal corticosteroid sprays (ICS) in this population has been studied infrequently, but is believed to be poor. Recent therapeutic options using combined antihistamines and leukotriene modifiers as alternatives to ICS may serve as adjuncts/substitutes in these children. To determine degree of compliance in pediatric patients taking ICS and identify factors leading patients to use the nasal spray less than what is recommended by their physician. Alternatives using oral therapy may lead to increased compliance. Pediatric patients prescribed daily ICS for control of perennial AR completed a seven point questionnaire. If parents were responsible for administering ICS, they completed the forms. The questionnaire inquired into attitudes, compliance and concerns regarding use of ICS. Attitudes towards the options of oral treatment were also inquired. Forty patients with AR responded when seen in follow-up after initially receiving ICS. Effectiveness varied directly with compliance. Despite this finding only 54% of the patients used their ICS daily as directed by their physician. 20% used ICS 5–6 days a week, 13% used ICS 3–4 times a week and 13% used ICS less than one day a week. Reasons for decreased frequency of use include difficulty remembering to take the spray (31%), side effects (27%), concern about steroid use (19%), ineffectiveness in relieving symptoms (15%) and discomfort (8%). The cost of ICS was not a factor effecting frequency of use. Difficulty remembering to take the nasal spray and ineffectiveness of the spray were identified as factors that influenced patients to dramatically decrease their use of the nasal spray. 31% of patients indicated that they would take oral medication if it were just as effective as the nasal spray. 25% of patients would take oral medication even if it was not as effective as the nasal spray, but when taken regularly could offer relief without the discomfort of using a spray. 65% of the patients would be willing to take an oral medication and a nasal spray together if the combination were more effective. Compliance in the treatment of pediatric AR remains suboptimal despite effect, mainly due to forgetfulness and poor effect. Poor compliance may have contributed to poor perception of effect. Use of oral medications either in combination or as alternative may help to increase compliance and treatment.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".