Enhancing Respiratory Muscle Strength and Asthma Control in Children with Asthma: The Impact of Balloon-Breathing Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Asthma represents a substantial public health concern, and exploring non-pharmacological avenues, such as respiratory exercises, is crucial for improving lung function and enhancing asthma control in children. Aims of the study: This study investigates the effects of balloon-blowing breathing exercise on respiratory muscle strength and asthma control in school-age children diagnosed with asthma. Method: Thirty children, aged 7 to 12 years, diagnosed with asthma, were allocated into two groups: Sustained Maximal Inspiration Breathing Group (SMG; n = 15) and Balloon-Blowing Breathing Group (BBG; n = 15). Both groups participated in breathing exercises five times a week for eight weeks. Physiological data, respiratory muscle strength, and asthma symptoms were evaluated in Pre- and Post-tests, employing paired t-tests for within-group comparisons and independent t-tests for between-group comparisons, with significance set at p < .05. Results: After eight weeks, no significant differences were observed in physiological data (body weight, resting heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure) between pre-test and post-test or between the two groups. Both BBG and SMG groups exhibited increased Maximal Inspiratory Pressure (MIP) and Maximal Expiratory Pressure (MEP) compared to pre-test (p < .05). Moreover, the BBG group displayed significantly higher MEP than the SMG group (p < .05). Asthma control scores significantly improved in both groups compared to pre-test (p < .05), with no significant differences between the groups. Conclusion: These findings suggest that eight weeks of balloon-blowing breathing exercise positively impact respiratory muscle strength and asthma control in school-age children with asthma. Balloon blowing exercise emerge as a valuable therapeutic intervention for enhancing respiratory health in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".