MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012053943 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.939770

“We are not worthy” – understanding why patients decline pulmonary rehabilitation following an acute exacerbation of COPD

2014· article· en· W2012053943 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsWest Park Healthcare Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary rehabilitationShameContext (archaeology)ReferralMedicineRehabilitationQualitative researchInterpretative phenomenological analysisExacerbationCOPDPsychologyBoredomClinical psychologyNursingPsychiatryPsychotherapistPhysical therapySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To explore how patients who refuse referral to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) appraise acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), in the context of having considered and declined PR. METHOD: Six participants recently hospitalized with an acute exacerbation COPD who refused a referral to PR subsequent to hospital discharge participated in in-depth interviews. Transcripts were subjected to interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). RESULTS: Three conceptual themes emerged comprising: "Construction of the self", reflecting the impact of the acute exacerbation on personal identity; "Relinquishing control", describing participants" struggle to maintain agency following an acute event; and "Engagement with others", embodying participants' sensitivity and responsiveness to interactions with others. CONCLUSIONS: Prominent in theses participants' narratives are self-conscious cognitions which appear founded in shame and stigmatization. These cognitions seem to reflect challenges to self-worth and appear associated with reduced help-seeking and isolation. Perceived personal culpability for COPD appears to sensitize participants' towards their interactions with health care professionals, construed as critical and judgmental which may increase avoidant behaviors, such as refusal of PR. When introducing PR, professionals should be aware of such sensitivities and facilitate open discussion which offers, time, compassion and understanding as a means of facilitating uptake. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Patients who decline referral to pulmonary rehabilitation report self-conscious cognitions (i.e., shame, guilt, fear of others evaluation) associated with lowered self-worth and reduced help-seeking. When introducing pulmonary rehabilitation health care professionals need to be mindful of patients' sensitivities to being shamed which stem from perceived culpability for COPD. Professionals should facilitate an open discussion with patients which offers, time, compassion and understanding as a means of facilitating pulmonary rehabilitation uptake. Compassion focused interventions which encourage trust and safety may promote active partnership working and facilitate engagement in pulmonary rehabilitation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it