Increasing implementation and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation: key messages from the new ATS/ERS policy statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of the New Policy Statement is to expand provision of pulmonary rehabilitation to suitable patients worldwide http://ow.ly/ZcBJvIn December 2015, the Official American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Policy Statement on Enhancing Implementation, Use and Delivery of Pulmonary Rehabilitation was published [1] with the aim of providing policy recommendations to increase implementation and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation worldwide.Major areas addressed included increasing healthcare professional, payer and patient awareness and knowledge of pulmonary rehabilitation, increasing patient access to pulmonary rehabilitation, improving quality of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and future research directions to advance evidence-based policy in pulmonary rehabilitation.This ATS/ERS document was developed via an iterative consensus process by an ad hoc Task Force on Policy in pulmonary rehabilitation comprised of experts from the ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly, the ERS Rehabilitation and Chronic Care Group, the ATS and ERS Documents Development and Implementation Committees, representatives from the European Lung Foundation (ELF) and primary care representatives from the USA and Europe between May 2013 and January 2015.Input was obtained via informal surveys from patients, patient advocacy groups, (including the ATS Public Advisory Roundtable and ELF), insurance payers, as well as primary and pulmonary specialty healthcare providers.The Policy Statement was approved by the Board of Directors of the ATS and the Science Council and Executive Committee of the ERS.This editorial provides European Respiratory Journal readers with a concise reflection on the key issues addressed and summarises the policy recommendations made in the ATS/ERS Policy Statement [1] to enhance implementation, use and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation.
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 | 0.027 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.120 | 0.103 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.007 |
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".