‘It is not going to change his life but it has picked him up’: a qualitative study of perspectives on long term oxygen therapy for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) extends life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with severe hypoxaemia. Questionnaire-based studies of the effects of LTOT have not suggested uniformly positive findings. The few qualitative studies suggest that patients report benefits but also concerns about dependency on oxygen therapy. The aim of the study was to explore the views and experiences of COPD patients, their carers and the healthcare professionals who deliver these services, on the long-term use of oxygen therapy. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 16 patients with from the LTOT service, six carers, and nine healthcare professionals (n = 31). Eleven patients with COPD, four carers and one staff manager (n = 16) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews and focus group were digitally recorded and field notes were taken. Data were analysed using the thematic network analysis approach. RESULTS: Patients and carers reported the benefits of LTOT including increased social activity, perceived improvements in health status and self-management in routine daily activities. Concerns were raised regarding stigma, dependency on LTOT and deterioration in health status. Staff accounts included negative perceptions, suggesting that LTOT was often inappropriately prescribed and under-used but recommended active patient management to address this challenge. CONCLUSIONS: LTOT has some beneficial effects in improving daily activities and social interaction of patients with COPD but also some limitations. Increased support and monitoring by healthcare professionals would address some concerns, as would better information for patients, carers and the general public.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".