<p>An Asthma Specialist’s Consult Letter: What Do Parents Think About Receiving a Copy?</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Written summaries about visits with general practitioners' have influenced increased patient knowledge, satisfaction, recollection, and compliance, and strengthened the doctor-patient relationship. All previous studies about this communication pre-dated the electronic medical record (EMR) era, and none examined views from parents of children with asthma. We explored parents' perceptions about receiving a hard copy summary Letter immediately following the visit, with the pediatric asthma specialist about findings and the care plan for their child. METHODS: A Parent Advisory Council helped inform this pilot study, an observational cross-sectional electronic survey. Each Letter included a comprehensive summary of the child's visit with the specialist. RESULTS: Previous findings from patients about the benefits of receiving this Letter were strongly supported by data from 51 participants. Interestingly, more than 54% of respondents preferred receiving a hard copy Letter over an electronic copy, and 98% wanted other clinicians to adopt this practice. CONCLUSION: Parents of children with asthma value and want timely written information of this nature from other clinicians. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These results can influence further asthma research to promote a change in the perceptions of clinicians, parents, and patients about timely access to health information in the EMR era.
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 | 0.003 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".