Participant experiences of a community-based maintenance program post-pulmonary rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to describe the perspectives of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who participated in a minimally supervised maintenance exercise intervention and identify the barriers and facilitators associated with participation. The intervention was delivered in a community center and was designed to maintain exercise capacity and quality of life following discharge from pulmonary rehabilitation. This study utilized qualitative focus groups (FGs) involving individuals with COPD (n = 12) who had been attending the maintenance community program for at least 6 months. All individuals who met the inclusion criteria for the FGs consented to participate. Four themes were identified: (1) issues around attendance; (2) perceived benefits of the program; (3) perceived burdens of the program; and (4) recommendations for program improvement. Participants expressed more benefits than barriers, stating that their experience of improved function and quality of life facilitated their attendance. Barriers included exacerbations, fatigue, access to transportation, and weather. Participants endorsed the benefits of a community-based maintenance exercise program after pulmonary rehabilitation. Minimally supervised community-based programs with access to a case manager may provide a useful approach to enhancing adherence to exercise.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".