Are Improvements Maintained After In-home Pulmonary Telerehabilitation for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated if improvements can be maintained over 24 weeks when in-home pulmonary telerehabilitation is combined with asynchronous self-management education for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Twenty-three community-living elders with moderate to very severe COPD participated in a pre/post-intervention study. Over 8 weeks, they had access to self-learning capsules on self-management, received 15 in-home teletreatment sessions and were encouraged to gradually engage in unsupervised sessions. Participants were assessed before the intervention (T1), immediately after the intervention (T2), and 6 months later (T3). Outcome measures were (1) exercise tolerance (6-minute walk test [6MWT]), Cycle Endurance Test [CET]), and (2) quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [CRQ]). Although there were significant improvements after 8 weeks of pulmonary telerehabilitation on the 6MWT, CET and three of four CRQ domains, none of these improvements were maintained after 6 months and scores returned to their baseline values (all p values > 0.05 when comparing T3 with T1). While pulmonary telerehabilitation is possible and has a positive impact on patients with moderate to very severe COPD, improvements were not maintained in the long-term even when physical therapy was accompanied by self-management education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".