MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224937944 · doi:10.1007/s41030-022-00190-z

Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: Perception of Asthma Control and its Management

2022· article· en· W4224937944 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maureen George, Camille Graff, A. Bombezin-Domino, Émilie Pain

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSanofi GenzymeAstraZenecaGenentechTeva Pharmaceutical IndustriesRegeneron PharmaceuticalsSanofi
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineObservational studyFamily medicineAsthma managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The aim of our observational study was to understand how patients with uncontrolled severe asthma perceive asthma control, and to assess their views on the role of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and other stakeholders in asthma management. METHODS: In total, 200 patients with uncontrolled, severe asthma living in Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, or the USA registered on the Carenity asthma community responded to a patient survey. RESULTS: While 62% of respondents indicated they knew a lot about asthma, they were not entirely satisfied with its control. The two most helpful tools considered important in long-term asthma control were centered on learning, with tips on asthma control (76%), as well as information on asthma and its causes (67%). Although asthma education programs were accessible to less than half (44%) of the respondents, 72% said they would find them useful. In the previous year, most patients (78%) consulted a specialist; however, while 54% of respondents participated in shared decision-making (SDM) concerning their treatment, less than one-third (29%) felt their opinion had been considered, and only 27% said it helped their HCPs to develop an informed action plan. However, 48% believed that SDM would help them feel more confident in achieving long-term control. Most respondents consulted emergency room doctors or nurse practitioners because of their uncontrolled severe asthma, finding them persuasive sources of information. Additionally, patient advocacy organizations (PAGs) were considered as a preferred (12%) or persuasive (6%) source by only a few patients. CONCLUSION: Most people with uncontrolled severe asthma were well informed about their disease. However, better information on asthma management would be useful for patients, with HCPs involved in this process. SDM was welcomed by respondents, but, to be successful, the patients' opinions should be taken into consideration when forming an asthma management action plan.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulmonary TherapySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207