Validating a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Improve Emergency Department Asthma Care: Protocol for an Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asthma affects 1 in every 12 persons in the United States, resulting in 1.9 million emergency department (ED) visits annually. However, the lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) validated for use in the ED limits the evaluation of interventions to improve ED asthma care. OBJECTIVE: To address this knowledge gap, this study protocol will (1) develop and test the validity and reliability of the Patient Reported Outcomes for Acute Asthma Care and Treatment instrument (PROAACT), (2) test whether receiving more guideline-concordant ED care is associated with improved PROAACT responses, and (3) evaluate the association between PROAACT score and subsequent ED revisits and hospitalizations. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of adult patients visiting the ED for acute asthma exacerbation across 3 EDs at an urban, tertiary care health system. Eligible patients are 18 years or older, have a prior diagnosis of asthma (self-reported or documented in the electronic health record), are English-speaking, and experiencing an ED visit for asthma exacerbation as determined by the treating clinician. Enrolled participants complete an initial PROM survey during their ED visit assessing their symptoms in the preceding 7 days, then complete a follow-up survey 7 days after ED discharge assessing changes in the symptoms in the subsequent 7 days. To test whether guideline-concordant care is associated with improved PROAACT scores, we will conduct a retrospective chart review of medications ordered during the ED visit, and then compare guideline adherence to changes in PROAACT scores. To test whether improved PROAACT scores are associated with fewer return ED visits and hospitalizations, we will extract all-cause ED visits and hospitalizations within 30 days from a regional health information exchange, and then compare usage to changes in PROAACT scores. We will use item response theory to develop scale responses based on summed item responses, which will allow us to test associations with clinical outcomes, including adherence to guideline-recommended care and return ED visits and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Recruitment is ongoing and has experienced numerous challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic. To date, we have enrolled over 250 participants and have completed over 200 follow-ups. Recruitment is expected to conclude in spring 2025. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is intended to validate the use of PROMs during ED visits for acute asthma exacerbation among adult patients. Completion of the proposed aims will result in one of the first PROMs intended for use among adult ED patients and support the feasibility of collecting PROMs in the ED setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT04349020; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04349020. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/67195.
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 | 0.085 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.006 |
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".