An International Comparison of Pulmonary Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the strong evidence base, the perception remains that the provision of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) services are extremely limited. Imbalances in PR delivery give rise to unnecessary health costs and underserviced populations. We conducted a systematic review to characterize the international provision of PR, comparing its structure and delivery across countries, and gaining insight into the availability of PR in relation to geographical prevalence. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched from inception to September 2013 using the key words "pulmonary rehabilitation" and "survey." Two authors independently reviewed studies and assessed study quality. Data was extracted and double-checked to ensure accuracy. RESULTS: The majority of programs (55-99%) were offered in an outpatient setting with the exception of Ireland, where the majority of programs were offered in the community (65%). Exercise was the primary component across all programs (77-100%), followed by education (74-100%). Physical therapists were the most common member of the PR team (49-100%). Functional walk tests were the most frequently used outcome measure, although the specific test utilized varied across countries. The current availability of PR services ≤1.2% of individuals with COPD. CONCLUSION: Components provided in PR are similar, irrespective of country, while patient outcome measures demonstrated variation across countries. Recent surveys report the use of community resources for the delivery of PR programs, although the majority are outpatient based. The small number of potential individuals enrolled in PR suggests that an international increase in access and capacity would improve quality of life and reduce healthcare utilization in this population.
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 | 0.022 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".