Pediatric Asthma Action Plans: National Cross-Sectional Online Survey of Parents' Perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma Action Plans (AAPs) are recommended for pediatric patients to help improve asthma control. Studies have shown variable results for unscheduled doctor and emergency room visits. AAPs may have an impact on parental self-efficacy for asthma management as well as on other daily living factors that are valuable for patients and families, such as the number of missed school days and parental workdays, and on school and caregiver management. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to understand parent perceptions of AAPs. The goals of this analysis were threefold, including examining (1) the association between pediatric AAPs and parental self-efficacy, (2) parent perceptions of the helpfulness of an AAP for daily living factors, and (3) associations with the type of provider who gave the AAP (a primary care provider or an asthma specialist). METHODS: A national cross-sectional online survey was completed in October 2018 by parents of children with asthma aged 0-17 years. Survey questions included the presence or absence of a pediatric AAP, the Bursch Parental Self-efficacy for Asthma scale, parental perceptions of the AAP's helpfulness with regard to daily living factors ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and the provider type who gave the AAP. Survey responses were summarized in terms of percentages or means and standard deviations. A 2-sample t test and analysis of covariance were used to compare self-efficacy for asthma and parental-perception-of-helpfulness scores between subjects with an AAP versus subjects without an AAP. All reported P values were 2-sided. RESULTS: A total of 704 parents with a child with asthma completed the survey. The parents had a mean age of 37.5 years (SD 10.9), and 82% (577/704) were women and 18% (127/704) were men. Most (564/704, 80%) parents had an AAP for their child; 65% (367/564) were written, 51% (286/564) were online, and 84% (474/564) were available at school. The Bursch Self-efficacy scale was significantly higher for parents with an AAP (mean 57.7, SD 8.6) versus no AAP (mean 55.1, SD 9.9; P<.001). Parents reported that they agreed/strongly agreed that an AAP was helpful for daily living factors, including managing asthma (446/544, 82%), decreased parental missed workdays (367/544, 68%), decreased child missed-school days (396/542, 73%), and for when a child is at school (422/541 78%), with other caregivers (434/543, 80%), doing normal activities (421/540 78%), and leading a normal life (437/540 81%). Parents agreed/strongly agreed that an AAP was helpful from all provider types: a pediatric provider (583/704, 82.8%), a family practice provider (556/704, 79%), and an asthma specialist (594/704, 84.4%). There was no significant difference (P=.53) between the type of provider who gave the AAP. CONCLUSIONS: Parents who had pediatric AAPs for their children reported increased parental self-efficacy compared to those who did not have AAPs. Parents found AAPs helpful for decreasing missed time from work and school, and for asthma management when at home, school, and with other caregivers. Significant AAP helpfulness was seen regardless of the provider who gave the AAP, the parent's education, and income level. Findings support the usefulness of pediatric AAPs for families and the development of easily sharable electronic AAPs for children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".