Does family support affect physical activity of patients with COPD? An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the well-recognised benefits of regular physical activity (PA) in COPD, a large number of patients are inactive. Previous research has highlighted that family support may affect PA levels of healthy people. However, the influence of family members on PA levels of patients with COPD has never been explored. Objective:To assess PA levels of patients with COPD and explore the influence of family members on this health behaviour. Methods: Eighteen patients (66.2±11.7 years, FEV 1 67.2±20.7pp) and their respective family members (57.7±12.4 years) completed the Portuguese version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short-form (IPAQ-sf), which provides information about the amount of PA performed in the last 7 days. This was reported as Metabolic Equivalents-minutes spent per week (MET-min/wk) and sitting time per day. Descriptive statistics were conducted and a stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was used to evaluate whether family members' PA variables were associated with patients' PA. Results: Patients spent a median of 1386.0 (interquartile range [IQR]=2255.5) MET-min/wk and family members spent 862.5 (IQR=1533.0) MET-min/wk. Self-reported sitting time was 4.0 (IQR=2.3) h/day for patients and 3.0 (IQR=3.25) h/day for family members. Family members' MET-min/wk (B=0.957, p=0.021) and sitting time (B=-10.319, p=0.015) were significant predictors of patients' MET-min/wk (F(2,15)=6.438, p=0.010; r 2 adjusted =0.39). Conclusion: Findings suggest that family members influence the PA levels of patients with COPD. Therefore, the inclusion of the family in rehabilitation interventions might facilitate the increase of patients' PA.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".