Pulmonary Rehabilitation Results in Significant Effect on Physical Outcomes: Preliminary Data from the Saint John Regional Hospital, New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current guidelines claim that pulmonary rehabilitation is a cost effective method for increasing exercise tolerance, decreasing hospitalization, and improving knowledge and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The purpose of the present study was to examine the changes in physical and psychological outcomes during and after completion of a pulmonary program. Methods: Between September 2004 and April 2006, 27 patients attended pulmonary rehabilitation. All patients were referred by a Respirologist and had moderate to severe respiratory impairment on pulmonary function testing. They attended 3 supervised exercise sessions per week for 10 weeks under the supervision of a nurse and physiotherapist. Education modules were provided by the physiotherapist and respiratory therapist to increase knowledge and independence with disease management. Data was collected pre and post program, and at 3 month and 6 month follow up visits. There were 16 patients (59.3%) who had complete data and attended all follow-up appointments. Outcomes included the six minute walk test (6MWT) and chronic respiratory questionnaire (CRQ). Follow up visits also assessed exercise adherence and readmissions for respiratory problems. Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance showed improvement in 6MWT and average metabolic equivalent (MET) from pre to post program (P < .05) which remained stable up to 6 months follow-up. The same analysis did not show improvement for any of the variables measured in the CRQ. Exercise routine, as reported by patients at 6 months, was 4.7 days per week for 28 minutes per session. Readmissions for pulmonary problems were reported by 3 patients, 2 at the 3 month assessment and 1 at the 6 month. Conclusions: Preliminary program results show improvement in physical outcomes and impressive exercise adherence at 6 months follow-up. The small sample size is an obvious limitation, but being an ongoing program, future data will reveal if these initial findings persist.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".