COPD circle of care: Patient centred education and counselling tool for COPD self-management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current gaps exist between heathcare professionals and COPD patients in effective communication & counselling on patient self management. Aim and objective: To develop a patient centred counselling tool, based on Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines, for COPD self management that will meet the needs of family physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, COPD educators & pharmacists responsible for COPD patient education. Methods: 7 national stakeholder organizations and 14 healthcare professionals from across Canada collaborated in the development of a patient centred COPD education/counselling tool. A core development board (3 COPD nurse educators, 1 pharmacist, 1 family physicians and 1 respirologist) developed the core materials. Input and direction was then provided by 3 regional committees (each comprised of 2-3 healthcare practitioners) to ensure regional nuances and national application of the tool. The national stakeholder organizations ensured that the tool meet the requirements of the respective organizations. The tool was tested with COPD patients to ensure usability and validity. Results: A tool with universal graphics and language in a paper format will be presented at the ERS. The tool contains self management strategies for preventing acute exacerbations, breathlessness, signs of worsening COPD and action plan. Conclusion: An effective patient education/counselling tool is required for successful communication between healthcare professionals and patients on COPD patient self-management. The utility and clinical impact of the tool will require HCP education and training.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".