Improving detection of work-related asthma: a review of gaps in awareness, reporting and knowledge translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Work-related asthma (WRA) accounts for up to 25% of all adults with asthma. Early diagnosis is key for optimal management as delays in diagnosis are associated with worse outcomes. However, WRA is significantly underreported and the median time to diagnosis is 4 years. The objective of this review is to identify the gaps in awareness and reporting of WRA and identify gaps in current knowledge translation strategies for chronic disease in general, and asthma specifically. This will identify reasons for delays in WRA diagnosis, as well inform suggestions to improve knowledge translation strategies for dissemination and implementation of WRA prevention and management guidelines. METHODS: Non-systematic literature reviews were conducted on PubMed with a focus on work-related asthma screening and diagnosis, and knowledge translation or translational medicine research in asthma and chronic disease. In total, 3571 titles and abstracts were reviewed with no restriction on date published. Of those, 207 were relevant and fully read. Another 37 articles were included and reviewed after citation reviews of articles from the initial search and from suggestions from editors. In total, 63 articles were included in the final review. RESULTS: Patients, employers, and healthcare professionals lack awareness and under-report WRA which contribute to the delayed diagnosis of WRA, primarily through lack of education, stigma associated with WRA, and lack of awareness and screening in primary care. Knowledge translation strategies for asthma research typically involve the creation of guidelines for diagnosis of the disease, asthma care plans and tools for education and management. While there are some prevention programs in place for certain industries, gaps in knowledge translation strategies including lack of screening tools currently available for WRA, poor education of employers and physicians in identifying WRA, and education of patients is often done post-diagnosis and focuses on management rather than prevention or screening. CONCLUSION: Future knowledge translation strategies should focus on educating employees and employers well before potential exposure to agents associated with WRA and screening for WRA in primary care to enable health care providers to recognize and diagnose WRA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".