MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911748863 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022506

Large care gaps in primary care management of asthma: a longitudinal practice audit

2019· article· en· W2911748863 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Courtney Price, Gina Agarwal, David W. Chan, Sanjeev Goel, Alan Kaplan, Louis‐Philippe Boulet, Muhammad Mamdani, Sharon E. Straus, Gerald Lebovic, Samir Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAsthmaAuditCohortFamily medicineProspective cohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Care gaps in asthma may be highly prevalent but are poorly characterised. We sought to prospectively measure adherence to key evidence-based adult asthma practices in primary care, and predictors of these behaviours. DESIGN: One-year prospective cohort study employing an electronic chart audit. SETTING: Three family health teams (two academic, one community-based) in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 884 patients (72.1% female; 46.0±17.5 years old) (4199 total visits; 4.8±4.8 visits/patient) assigned to 23 physicians (65% female; practising for 10.0±8.6 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of visits during which practitioners assessed asthma control according to symptom-based criteria. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of: patients who had asthma control assessed at least once; visits during which a controller medication was initiated or escalated; and patients who received a written asthma action plan. Behavioural predictors were established a priori and tested in a multivariable model. RESULTS: Primary outcome: Providers assessed asthma control in 4.9% of visits and 15.4% of patients. Factors influencing assessment included clinic site (p=0.019) and presenting symptom, with providers assessing control more often during visits for asthma symptoms (35.0%) or any respiratory symptoms (18.8%) relative to other visits (1.6%) (p<0.01). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Providers escalated controller therapy in 3.3% of visits and 15.4% of patients. Factors influencing escalation included clinic site, presenting symptom and prior objective asthma diagnosis. Escalation occurred more frequently during visits for asthma symptoms (21.0%) or any respiratory symptoms (11.9%) relative to other visits (1.5%) (p<0.01) and in patients without a prior objective asthma diagnosis (3.5%) relative to those with (1.3%) (p=0.025). No asthma action plans were delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Major gaps in evidence-based asthma practice exist in primary care. Targeted knowledge translation interventions are required to address these gaps, and can be tailored by leveraging the identified behavioural predictors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01070095; Pre-results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207