The Role of Distributed Health Literacy in Asthma Integrated Care: A Public Medical Context from Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Improvements in asthma integrated care might be achieved through in-depth knowledge about how health literacy is dispersed through a group. This study intends to map out health literacy mediators (those who makes his/her literacy skills available to others for them to accomplish specific literacy purposes) and how they enable self-management skills in patients with asthma.Methods: Twenty interviews were conducted in a Primary Care Center of Porto using the McGill Illness Narrative Interview. Data were thematically analyzed as case-based and process-tracing-oriented.Results: Interviewees with a dense network of mediators revealed a low impact of asthma on their lives, dependence on primary care physician for instrumental support and dependence on family members to provide emotional/pragmatic support. Interviewees who relied on a restricted network of mediators (belonging to formal sources of health services and providing informational support) described episodes of crisis as disruptive and demonstrated a reactive approach to self-management skills.Conclusions: The roles performed by core health mediators (health professionals, family/friends, media) in support of asthma management varied according to patients’ narratives of minimization/disruption, connected to dense/restricted social networks. To clarify the boundaries of responsibility-shifting and to enrich support provided by formal sources of health services and peer education groups is needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".