Pulmonary Rehabilitation: Overwhelming Evidence but Lost in Translation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This report highlights the current international gap between the availability of high-quality evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) and its low level of implementation. Key barriers are outlined, and potentially effective strategies to improve implementation are presented. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Although pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is recommended by international guidelines as part of the management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), participation in PR remains low. Physician referral to PR ranges from 3% to 16% of suitable patients. Barriers to participation include limited availability of suitable programmes and interrelated issues of referral and access. Individual patient barriers, including factors relating to comorbidities and exacerbations, perceptions of benefit, and ease of access, contribute less overall to low participation rates. Chronic care programmes that incorporate self-management support have some benefit in patients with COPD. However, the demonstrated cost-effectiveness of PR is substantial, and efforts to improve its implementation are urgently indicated. CONCLUSION: To improve implementation, a holistic examination of the key issues influencing a patient's participation in PR is needed. Such an examination should consider the relative influences of environmental (e.g., health-service-related) factors, organizational factors (e.g., referral and intake procedures), and individual factors (e.g., patient barriers) for all participants. On the basis of these findings, policy, funding, service delivery, and other interventions to improve participation in PR can be developed and evaluated.
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 | 0.187 | 0.606 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".