Asthma Management Effectiveness of Web-Based Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate web-based education interventions for people with asthma.Methods: The study was conducted by scanning Cochrane, Pubmed and, Science Direct. English for the keywords "Medical Subject Headings" and Turkish for the keywords "Turkey Science Terms" analyzed the directory. Inclusion criteria in the review; These are all randomized controlled studies that indicate web-based asthmaeducation interventions, conducted in 2015 and 2020 for adult asthma patients, and published in English and Turkish. 3.146 studies on the subject were examined. A total of five publications that meet the inclusion criteria have been included in the study.Results: The five studies that met the inclusion criteria included a minimum of 51 and a maximum of 330 participants, with implementation times of a minimum of 3 weeks and a maximum of 12 months. Two of the studies were conducted in the UK, the others in Australia, Canada, and Germany. Four of the studies were randomized, and one was stratified randomization. Two of the studies included in the review had a theoretical framework for the impact of participants' exposure to the website and were piloted.Conclusion: Web-based education in asthma management appears to be feasible, but the online community does not improve adherence to self-medication. It has emerged that studies on the subject are few and more randomized controlled studies are needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".