MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320032608 · doi:10.1007/s41030-023-00218-y

Engaging Ethnically Diverse Populations in Self-Management Interventions for Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Narrative Review

2023· review· en· W4320032608 on OpenAlexaff
Stacy Maddocks, Pat G. Camp, Clarice Tang

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnically diversePsychological interventionSelf-managementMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)DiseasePopulationGerontologyIntensive care medicineNursingEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burden of chronic respiratory diseases continues to rise globally. Comprehensive management relies on a combination of treatment approaches including patient self-management, where health professionals are required to educate and support patients to take control of their disease. When self-management interventions are suitably directed and effectively executed, outcomes point to increases in quality of life and a reduction in unscheduled or emergency consultations for people living with chronic respiratory disease. However, despite these positive gains, the literature reveals poor trends of engagement with this management approach and reduced access to appropriately designed programs for people from ethnically diverse populations, including migrants and refugees. The purpose of this review article is to discuss factors influencing engagement in chronic respiratory disease self-management among people from ethnically diverse backgrounds and to propose strategies to improve the participation of this population in these interventions in the future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.407
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulmonary TherapySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207