Assessment of levels of asthma control among adult patients with asthma at Chitungwiza Central Hospital, Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of the reversible airways obstruction forms the cornerstone of quality asthma management. The aim of this study was to assess the level of control for asthma in adult patients, using a cross sectional study design. The assessment of control for asthma was based on the ACQ. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study to measure the level of control for asthma among patients with asthma who volunteered and were reporting to Chitungwiza Central Hospital. We interviewed and conducted spirometry (lung function testing) on 400 adult patients with asthma. We used the ACQ questions to interview patients. A trained health care provider performed spirometry using the Koko Legend spirometer after meeting all the ambient conditions as outlined in the American Thoracic Society guidelines. RESULTS: Our study assessed levels of asthma control among 400 adult patients with physician-diagnosed asthma. The results showed that 248 (62%) participants had uncontrolled asthma. The median age of the adult patients who had uncontrolled asthma was 35 years (IQR: 27-44). Using the clinical practice cut-point of 0.75 for controlled asthma, only 152 (38%) were controlled, while 72 (18.8%), 50 (12.5%) and 123 (30.7%) were mildly uncontrolled, moderately uncontrolled and very uncontrolled respectively. Among participants who were widowed had uncontrolled asthma (p = 0.003) while most of the married 103 (67.8%) had controlled asthma (p = 0.018). The findings of the study showed that all the items on the ACQ were significantly different in asthma mean scores (p ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION: We concluded that most asthma patients that participated in the study were uncontrolled. We therefore, recommend an evaluation of factors associated with poor asthma control in order to improve asthma care and achieve good asthma control outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".