Youths with asthma and their experiences of self‐management education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To identify and synthesize the available evidence of youths with asthma and their experience of self-management education. DESIGN: Systematic literature review of qualitative studies with meta-synthesis of findings. DATA SOURCES: We searched five databases, CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE (EBSCO) PsycINFO, ASSIA and the Global Index Medicus (formerly the WHOLIS). Initial search in September 2019 and updated in July 2020 and July 2022. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Qualitative data were extracted, meta-summarized and then meta-synthesized. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified for inclusion in this review and three themes were identified: The theory and practice gap, contemporary health-seeking preferences and the psychosocial impacts of living with asthma. CONCLUSION: The needs of youths with asthma are specific and must be measurable against the change in asthma outcomes for this group. They have unmet self-management educational needs that stakeholders, involved in their care and support, should address. Education and practice policy should focus on youth-centric approaches. Through meaningful engagement with youths, stakeholders can identify their support needs, requirements and preferences to successfully underpin the theory and practice of self-management education. IMPACT: This review synthesized evidence of youths with asthma and their experiences of self-management education, highlighting their specific self-management information needs. The findings highlight several implications for healthcare professionals in education, practice and research. This age profile is under-explored and further research into this population would work towards filling the theory and practice gap and highlighting the identified psychosocial issues faced by this group.
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 | 0.061 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".