Management of cough in Canadian primary care and specialty practices: A survey of current knowledge of clinicians and allied health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE Cough is one of the most common causes for medical consultation. However, we do not know whether its management is optimal in Canada. Although guidelines are available, awareness of these and implementation of their recommendations are uncertain.OBJECTIVE The objective of this research was to evaluate the diagnostic approach and management of cough, as well as knowledge of cough guidelines in Canada.METHODS A cross-sectional online survey of general practitioners (GPs), specialists (SPs) and allied health professionals (AHPs) was conducted anonymously in Canada. Participants answered multiple-choice questions on etiology, diagnosis, follow-up and treatment (only physicians) of cough and knowledge and application of cough guidelines.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A total of 248 respondents completed the survey (43 GPs, 27 SPs, and 178 AHPs). In the investigation of a patient with chronic cough, a chest radiograph was the most common test ordered by physicians (GPs: 51.2%, SPs: 59.3%) and spirometry with bronchodilator reversibility (61.2%) by AHPs. GPs most often treated cough of unknown etiology with combined inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) (25.8%) and SPs with a nasal corticosteroid (NCS)(29.8%). NCS was also the most often prescribed treatment for cough considered originating in the upper respiratory tract (GPs: 60.4%, SPs: 76.2%). When cough was believed to be due to asthma or gastroesophageal reflux disease, treatment was appropriate in most cases. Awareness of current cough guidelines content was poor in all groups (GPs: 14.0%, SPs: 51.9%, AHPs: 26.6%).CONCLUSIONS Physicians and AHPs’ knowledge and application of guidelines for the management of chronic cough remains poor.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".