Methodological Issues Encountered in a Study of Hospitalized COPD Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study with hospitalized chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients determined the feasibility of providing and evaluating a tailored education program. This article describes two methodological issues encountered. Issues included recruitment and retention, and selection of outcome measures. The COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) and Dartmouth Functional Health Status (FHS) charts provided data on evaluation and outcome measurements. Of 67 patients, 55% met eligibility criteria, 73% (n = 27) agreed to participate, and 74% (n = 20) completed the study. Results revealed acceptance and satisfaction with the educational intervention. The median CSES score, significantly (z = 3.51,p = .004) improved from 53% to 82%. In FHS, a 20% improvement occurred in all except social support. Methodological concerns with the CSES reinforced the need for further investigation of the reliability and validity for hospitalized COPD patients. Researchers' observations may assist in planning educational interventions and program evaluations with hospitalized COPD patients.
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 | 0.449 | 0.507 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".