A pilot randomized controlled trial on the impact of text messaging check-ins and a web-based asthma action plan versus a written action plan on asthma exacerbations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared electronic asthma action plans (eAAP) supported by automated text messaging service (SMS) with written asthma action plans (AAP) on assessing acceptability and asthma control improvement. We hypothesized that the patients in eAAP group would have more improvements in their quality of life, asthma control and decreased asthma exacerbations. METHODS: Patients with physician-diagnosed asthma having at least one asthma exacerbation in the previous 12 months were recruited. Participants received individualized action plans and were randomly assigned into either the intervention (eAAP) or control (AAP) group. Intervention participants received weekly SMS, triggering assessment of asthma control and viewing their eAAP. We assessed applicability of Telehealth platform on asthma exacerbations, asthma control, and quality of life over a 12-month period. RESULTS: 106 patients were enrolled (eAAP = 52, AAP = 54). The cumulative response rate to all weekly SMS check-ins was 68.4%. Overall, 28% of patients checked into their eAAP during the intervention period. There were fewer exacerbations in the eAAP group (18%) compared to the AAP group (RR = 0.82 [95%CI 0.49, 1.36]), (P = 0.44). The mean scores for asthma control and quality of life were higher in the eAAP group compared to the AAP group by 4% (RR = 1.04 [95%CI 0.83, 1.30]), (P = 0.73) and 5.5% (RR = 1.06 [95%CI 0.87, 1.28]), (P = 0.59), respectively, but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the eAAP presented improved asthma control outcomes, but as expected the sample size was inadequate to show a significant difference, but based on this pilot study we plan a larger appropriately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT).
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it