AERO CA/UK 01 Survey: Comparing respiratory patient care and perceptions in Canada and UK – differences do exist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Using respiratory patient databases in Canada and UK, we sought to compare and contrast aspects of respiratory care. Perceptions on the value of their Spacer (Valved Holding Chamber) were also assessed. Methods: A survey was sent out to patients across Canada and UK who were registered in MyAero* Community, a voluntary platform for AeroChamber* VHC (TMI) users. The survey asked whether they had annual HCP visits, did they have an Asthma / COPD action plan, and how often inhaler technique was checked, as well as differences noticed between using an MDI/VHC system compared to an MDI alone. Results: 2007 Canadian patients (82% Asthma, 18% COPD) and 294 UK patients (72% Asthma, 28% COPD) completed the survey. 88% of the UK patients had an annual visit with their HCP compared to 68% in Canada. The presence of action plans was also higher in UK (73% vs 53%) and inhaler technique was checked either once a year or every visit in 73% and 35% of patients in UK and Canada respectively. Regarding perceived differences using an MDI/VHC system versus an MDI alone, in UK and Canada respectively 80%/79% were more confident in medication delivery, 20%/23% noticed less puffs were required, 14%/10% experienced fewer side effects, and 10%/9% had fewer emergency care visits. Conclusions: Notwithstanding survey limitations (including likely pro-activity bias of respondents towards seeking healthcare assistance), it was notable that the UK patients were more likely to have an annual HCP visit and an action plan, as well as having their inhaler technique checked more often. In contrast, views on the value of their Spacer were similar in both countries.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".