KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES OF ASTHMATIC CHILDREN'S CAREGIVERS FOLLOW UP IN CAIRO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT CLINICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In paediatric Asthma, involvement of caregivers is essential, therefore a satisfactory level of parental knowledge influences the effectiveness of treatment of bronchial asthma as an important part in prevention of exacerbations and complications the hypothesis of this research is that good knowledge about bronchial asthma among asthmatic children's caregivers can lead to better control of asthma. Aim of this research: to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) among caregivers of asthmatic children and evaluate factors affecting level of KAP. Subject and Method: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted on 150 caregivers of asthmatic children for follow up in chest and allergy outpatient clinic in pediatric specialized hospital, Cairo University. They were interviewed to fill a predesigned structured questionnaire to cover basic demographic and personal data, criteria of asthma control and to assess their knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding bronchial asthma. Then find the correlation between KAP score and the association between (KAP) and other factors like educational level, occupation of caregiver, level of asthma control and assessment of KAP score as a predictor of asthma control. Results: The KAP score ranged from 31 to 73 with average of 53 ±10 SD. The 50Th percentile of KAP score was fifty-five and this was considered the cut-off value to categorize KAP score into good (above 50th percentile) which was present in 73 caregivers (48.7%) and poor (below 50th percentile) in 77 caregivers (51.3%). Good KAP was significantly correlated to occupation of the caregiver and level of asthma control (p value < 0.05). Also, caregivers with good KAP score, their children were 8 times more likely to be controlled than those with bad KAP score (OR=8.4, 95% CI=3.3-21.3).and caregivers who achieved universal education, their children were more likely to be controlled than those who are illiterate (OR=4.8, 95% CI= 1.0-22.8).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".