Family integration in pulmonary rehabilitation programmes: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) places a high burden on patients and their family. The World Health Organization has recommended family integration in rehabilitation interventions. However, Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) programmes for COPD typically focus on patients, neglecting the family. This study aimed to explore the needs and expectations of patients with COPD and respective family carers and assess their perspectives about their participation in a PR programme. Nine patients with COPD (70±8yrs; FEV169±25%pred) and their family carers (64±11yrs) were recruited in primary care. Individual interviews were conducted to explore their needs and expectations about PR programmes. Focus groups were conducted after their participation in a PR programme. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed and submitted to content analysis. Patients and carers identified the need for more information about COPD (nP=7; nC=5) and emotional support (nP=2; nC=3), and expected PR programmes to improve their skills to manage the disease (nP=9; nC=2). A PR programme with psychoeducation and exercise training was implemented, considering these findings. Participants reported that the programme helped them to cope better with the disease and patients found their carers to be less worried and living happier (n=3). The majority of carers reported self-benefits (n=6) and stressed the importance of on-going support to help themselves and their care receivers (n=2). PR programmes inclusive of carers have the potential to enhance the skills of the whole family to manage COPD and, therefore, to promote a healthy adjustment to the disease. Future research should explore the impact of PR programmes within the family unit.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".