Behavioral Changes in General Practitioners towards Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Over Five Years: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Early detection of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is critical for preventing progression; however, the disease is rarely detected in the early stages. One reason for this is that COPD is not generally recognized and diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs). The objective of this study was to observe changes in the knowledge and behavior of GPs regarding the diagnosis and treatment of COPD over a five-year period. METHODS: The surveys were performed using identical and anonymous questionnaires in 2005, 2006 and 2010. During this period, various educational campaigns were conducted. MATERIALS: All members of the Shiga Medical Association working as GPs in Shiga Prefecture. RESULTS: The number of questionnaires collected was 216 of 711, 269 of 731 and 326 of 856, respectively. Throughout the study period, the number of doctors who prescribed inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) significantly increased (p<0.001). However, there were no significant changes in the rate of possession of spirometers or recognition of COPD guidelines. When we focused on the data for internists, the rate of recognition of the guidelines increased significantly (p<0.01), despite a lack of change in the rate of possession of spirometers. Furthermore, the results of the multivariate analysis revealed that increased knowledge concerning COPD was associated with the doctor's specialty, ownership of a spirometer, number of COPD patients attending their clinic and their level of recognition of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: During the study period, the GPs prescribed more inhaled LAMAs. The rate of recognition of COPD guidelines was also increased among internists. Educational campaigns may be more effective if the backgrounds of the GPs are taken into consideration.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".