Implementation and Sustainability of an Enhanced Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program in a Single Centre
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has major benefits for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The availability of PR in Canada is low. To facilitate implementation, a standardized and enhanced PR Program has been developed with a self-management education intervention that has been validated and shown to be effective. The objectives of our study were to assess the implementation of this program into a single site; determine the sustainability 18 months after implementation; and to identify the satisfaction with, facilitators of and barriers to implementation and sustainability of the program as perceived by patients with COPD and HCPs. Methods: We conducted a prospective pre-post study which consisted of two phases: 1) the implementation phase (first six months after implementation) and 2) the sustainability phase (18 months after implementation). Guided by the RE-AIM framework, outcomes including: Reach (number of patients enrolled and demographics), Effectiveness (Change in patient outcomes), Adoption (HCPs’ characteristics), Implementation (Program fidelity) and Maintenance (Patient outcomes at 3-month follow-up). Results: Reach: Twenty-six patients were included for both phases (two different samples). Effectiveness: Clinically important improvements in patient outcomes were found for functional exercise capacity, knowledge, functional status and self-efficacy in both phases of the study. Adoption: All HCPs involved in PR (N=8) agreed to participate and used the program in both phases of the study. Implementation: Fidelity for the group education sessions ranged from 76-95% in the implementation phase and from 82-88% in the sustainability phase. Maintenance (implementation phase): Clinical important improvements at 3-month follow-up were found in knowledge, self-efficacy for exercise and walking. Patients and HCPs were highly satisfied with the program. Lack of time was reported as the most common barrier and having longstanding procedures as the most common facilitator by HCPs to implementation and sustainability of the program. Conclusions: The enhanced PR program was accepted by the patients and HCPs and could be reliably implemented and maintained at a single expert center. The program provided clinical benefits for patients in terms of functional capacity, knowledge and self-efficacy for walking. These findings will guide planning for wide scale dissemination and implementation of the program.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».