MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034823677 · doi:10.7189/jogh.10.010428

A systematic review of interventions addressing limited health literacy to improve asthma self-management

2020· review· en· W3034823677 on OpenAlexaff
Hani Salim, Siti Nurkamilla Ramdzan, Sazlina Shariff Ghazali, Ping Yein Lee, Ingrid Young, Kirstie McClatchey, Hilary Pinnock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCentre for Global Health Research
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineHealth literacyAsthmaRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEFamily medicineLiteracyData extractionSelf-managementHealth careNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Supported asthma self-management improves health outcomes. However, people with limited health literacy, especially in lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), may need tailored interventions to enable them to realise the benefits. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of asthma self-management interventions targeted at people with limited health literacy and to identify strategies associated with effective programmes. METHODS: Following Cochrane methodology, we searched ten databases (January 1990 - June 2018; updated October 2019), without language restriction. We included controlled experimental studies whose interventions targeted health literacy to improve asthma self-management. Selection of papers, extraction of data and quality assessment were done independently by two reviewers. The primary outcomes were clinical (asthma control) and implementation (adoption/adherence to intervention). Analysis was narrative. RESULTS: = 0.001); the other showed no effect. None reported uptake or adherence to the intervention. Behavioural change strategies typically focused on improving an individual's psychological and physical capacity to enact behaviour (eg, targeting asthma-related knowledge or comprehension). Only two interventions also targeted motivation; none sought to improve opportunity. Less than half of the interventions used specific self-management strategies (eg, written asthma action plan) with tailoring to limited health literacy status. Different approaches (eg, video-based and pictorial action plans) were used to provide education. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of studies and diversity of the interventions to support people with limited health literacy to self-manage their asthma meant that the impact on health outcomes remains unclear. Given the proportion of the global population who have limited health literacy skills, this is a research priority. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD 42018118974.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.557
Teacher spread0.459 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Global HealthSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207