Physiotherapy management of first nations children with bronchiectasis from remote top end communities of the northern territory: a retrospective chart audit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bronchiectasis is a chronic pulmonary disorder which is prevalent among Australian First Nations people in the Northern Territory (NT). Current guidelines recommend physiotherapy as part of multi-disciplinary management of children with bronchiectasis, however in our setting, involvement of physiotherapy remains unknown. We thus undertook a retrospective chart audit to examine physiotherapy management of First Nations children (<18 years) from remote First Nations communities in the Top End of the NT at the index bronchiectasis diagnosis and 12 months following diagnosis. Methods: Participants were identified from a larger prospective study of children investigated for bronchiectasis at Royal Darwin Hospital, NT (2007-2016). Children were included if they were First Nations, aged <18 years, had a radiological diagnosis of bronchiectasis on high resolution computed tomography scan and lived in a remote community serviced by NT Government health clinics. The medical records from NT Government hospitals, health clinics and where possible other medical service attendance were reviewed for physiotherapy referral and management at the time of bronchiectasis diagnosis and in the following 12 months in the community. Results: Of 143 children included, the mean age was 3.1 (standard deviation 2.4) years and 84 (58.7%) were males. At the index diagnosis, 76/122 (62.3%) children were reviewed by a physiotherapist, consisting of airway clearance techniques (83.8%), physical activity/exercise (81.7%) and caregiver education (83.3%), with only 7/127 (5.5%) having evidence of referral for community-based physiotherapy. In the following 12 months, only 11/143 (7.7%) children were reviewed by a physiotherapist, consisting of airway clearance techniques (54.5%), physical activity/exercise (45.5%) and caregiver education (36.4%). Conclusion: This study demonstrates a significant gap in the provision of physiotherapy services in our setting and the need to develop a standardized pathway, to support the best practice management of children with bronchiectasis in remote Top End communities of the NT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".