Recommendations for 24-Hour Movement Behaviours in Adults with Asthma: A Review of Current Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many countries have clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for asthma that serve as an important resource for healthcare professionals and inform the development of policies and practices relevant to asthma care. The purpose of this scoping review was to search for CPGs related to asthma to determine what recommendations related to the 24-h movement behaviours are provided. Methods: We searched for the most recent CPGs published by a national authoritative body from 195 countries. Guidelines were reviewed for all movement behaviours; that is, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Results: In total, 82 documents were searched for eligibility and 19 were included in our review. Of these, only 10 CPGs provided information on physical activity; none provided recommendations consistent with the FITT principle, while seven recommended activity levels similar to the general population. None of the guidelines included information on sedentary behaviour. Nine guidelines included information on sleep: recommendations mostly focused on changes to medication to reduce disruptions in sleep. Conclusions: It is recommended that future work be conducted to create comprehensive movement behaviour guidelines accompanied with relevant precautions and strategies to ensure that adults with asthma are able to safely and effectively engage in movement behaviours throughout the day.
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 | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".