Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes in the UK: a national representative survey
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Respiratory disease is a common cause of disability in middle and late life. Pulmonary rehabilitation programmes improve exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic lung diseases. However, currently, in the UK the availability of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and their characteristics are unknown. METHODS: We surveyed pulmonary rehabilitation programmes in terms of number, size, duration, content of educational and exercise programme, and staffing. We mailed a 17-item questionnaire previously used in Canadian study to 190 physiotherapy departments within acute hospitals in UK. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-one (90%) responses were received. Sixty-eight centres (40%) run a pulmonary rehabilitation programme (99% outpatient). Mean age of subjects was > or = 70 in only seven centres (10%), though most cited no upper age limit. Ninety-nine per cent of centres incorporated exercise training. Programmes recruited a median group size of 10 patients (range 4-17) at a given time with a median duration of eight weeks (range 5-24) weeks. Most (71%) run twice per week with a duration of 2 hours (63%). Only half offered smoking cessation support, and a minority gave advice on coping with disease, travel and sexual matters. CONCLUSION: Around 40% of surveyed hospitals run a pulmonary rehabilitation programme and most of the programmes are similar in their format, content and staffing. Despite the high prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related disability in old age most programmes chiefly included younger subjects. This may reflect lack of referral. Greater awareness and expansion of availability of programmes is indicated.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it