Improving Understanding of and Adherence to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients with COPD: A Qualitative Inquiry of Patient and Health Professional Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) who adhere to a pulmonary rehabilitation program are better able to manage their illness and experience a better health-related quality of life, pulmonary rehabilitation remains underused. This study aims to describe the experiences of patients who are in a pulmonary rehabilitation program, and explore the perceptions of both patients and health professionals about what improves effective pulmonary rehabilitation. METHODS: A qualitative research design, including focus groups and individual interviews with 25 patients and 7 program health professionals, was used to obtain combined perspectives about the factors underpinning the COPD patient's reasons for participation in a rehabilitation program. RESULTS: Three themes were derived from the descriptive content analysis: (1) building confidence, (2) a perception of immediate tangible results, and (3) being ready and having access to the program. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Qualitative findings from this study suggest that a patient's adherence to a COPD rehabilitation program can be improved by quickly building up the participant's confidence, promoting tangible results, and by timely recognizing and responding to the issues of readiness and access. Based on these findings, health care providers could develop strategies to better serve COPD patients who face multiple barriers to access and successfully complete a pulmonary rehabilitation program.
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 | 0.023 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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; 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".