The experience of patients with lymphoedema undergoing a period of compression bandaging in the UK and Canada using the 3M™ Coban™ 2 compression system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a qualitative study that explored the experience of patients who have undergone a period of complete decongestive therapy using the 3M™ Coban™ 2 compression system (Coban 2 system). Qualitative data were collected from 12 patients from the UK and 8 from Canada with a range of presentations of lymphoedema. Single semi-structured interviews were used and participants were asked questions relating to their experience of diagnosis, the impact of lymphoedema on their lives, previous treatment using multilayer lymphoedema bandaging and their experiences of the 3M™ Coban™ 2 system. Treatment with multilayer lymphoedema bandaging was seen as constraining in that it was tiring, time consuming, heavy, bulky and led to feelings of clumsiness and a restricted life. Treatment with the 3M™ Coban™ 2 system was reported as enabling in that it was quicker and easier to apply, increased mobility, enhanced patient confidence and provided a sense of control and well-being. The article also explores how aspects of the 3M™ Coban™ 2 system might be improved from the patient's point of view.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".