Effectiveness of a preschool asthma education programme, compared to usual care, on the frequency of acute asthma events: a community-based cluster randomised trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether an asthma intervention delivered within preschools can improve asthma outcomes in children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, we undertook a pragmatic, single-blind, cluster randomised trial in Auckland, New Zealand. We randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) preschools, and their children aged 2-5 years with asthma or a high probability of asthma, to receive an asthma intervention (a 12-month respiratory nurse-led asthma assessment using an evidence-based, web-based tool and a class-based asthma education programme for four months), or a control intervention (a class-based science education programme for four months). Both groups received standard asthma management by their primary care physician. The primary outcome was the proportion of children that had at least one unscheduled ("urgent") medical or ED attendance for asthma over 12 months. RESULTS: We randomised 171 preschools, 85 to the intervention (341 children) and 86 to the control (334 children). We found no difference in the primary outcome (intervention: 216/341, 63% vs control: 181/334, 54%: adjusted Odds Ratio=1.36, 95% Confidence Interval=0.95-1.94, p=0.095). However, compared with the control group, the intervention group had improved and sustained asthma control and fewer asthma symptoms over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Combining asthma education with a nurse-led, evidence-based asthma assessment and education intervention led to sustained improvements in asthma control in this preschool population, but its effect on acute events remains unclear.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".