Asthma patients' perspectives on telehealth in disease management: A focus group study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: health care among adult asthma patients, particularly in patients with limited access to specialty lung clinic services, requires further investigation. This study aimed to explore asthma patients' perceived applicability of TH in asthma self-management practices, to inform a future TH-based interventional study. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study design was applied during virtual, patient-orientedfocus group sessions and individual telephone interviews. Participants responded to questions spanning 4 main topics: 1) understanding of and beliefs on TH; 2) perceptions about the application of electronic asthma action plans; 3) using tele-communication to interact with a care provider; and 4) prospective TH features for asthma management. Data were collected from 25 patients with asthma (19 attended one of two focus groups and 6 were interviewed individually). Codes and definitions were developed inductively and assembled into a coding framework. Transcripts were subsequently coded, and thematic analysis was performed. Results: Group discussions and individual interviews generated 4 TH-related themes: 1) past experiences and future use of TH; 2) perceived advantages and disadvantages of TH in asthma management; 3) integration of TH into self-management practices; and 4) features of a practical TH model for the current healthcare system. Conclusion: Participants input in the design of TH interventions for asthma management could improve access to and quality of virtual care services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".