Action Plans in Patients Presenting to Emergency Departments with Asthma Exacerbations: Frequency of Use and Description of Contents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although underused, written asthma action plans (AAPs) are associated with reduced numbers of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of use and contents of any AAPs reported by patients presenting with exacerbations to three urban Canadian EDs. METHODS: Prospective data were collected through ED interview and chart review. Descriptive analyses used proportions and medians with interquartile range; multivariable logistic regression was used for the adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Among 176 enrolled patients, the median age was 27 years (interquartile range 23 to 39 years) and 97 (55%) were female. Few (n=42 [24%]) reported having AAPs at ED presentation and only six were written. Most (n=35 [75%]) patients with any AAP took action before the ED visit; none used a valid anti-inflammatory strategy. The first step of 27 plans was to increase asthma medication; no patients appropriately increased inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). In multivariable analyses, only the use of either ICS or ICS⁄long-acting β-agonist combination agents (31% had AAPs versus 12% did not have AAPs (adjusted OR 3.0 [95% CI 1.14 to 8.07]) and asthma education (47% had AAPs versus 21% did not have AAPs, adjusted OR 3.2 [95% CI 1.13 to 9.19]) were independently associated with AAP possession. CONCLUSION: Possession of AAPs among patients presenting to the ED with acute asthma was low, and only one in 10 AAPs were written. Patients who reported having any AAP used ineffective strategies to abort or mitigate the severity of an ED visit. Increasing frequency of written AAPs and improving their contents holds immediate promise in improving outcomes related to asthma.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".