MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2396938182

Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Ontario: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

2015· article· en· W2396938182 on OpenAlexaffabout
James M. Bowen, Kaitryn Campbell, Simone Sutherland, Ann Bartlett, Dina Brooks, Riaz Qureshı, Roger Goldstein, Andrea S. Gershon, Shelley Prevost, Lorelei Samis, Alan Kaplan, Robert Hopkins, Craig MacDougald, Érica Vitória Almeida Nunes, Daria O’Reilly, Ron Goeree

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Joseph's Care GroupWest Park Healthcare CentreCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonPrograms for Assessment of Technology in Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary rehabilitationCOPDRehabilitationFamily medicineHealth careCross-sectional studyIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyNursingPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a comprehensive intervention of exercise training, education, and behaviour change to improve the physical and psychological condition of people with chronic respiratory disorders, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to promote long-term adherence to health-enhancing behaviours. Although PR is considered the standard of care for patients with COPD who remain symptomatic despite bronchodilator therapies, current evidence suggests that only 1.15% of COPD patients across Canada have access to PR facilities for care. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify the number of health care facilities across Ontario providing PR services for patients with COPD, describe the scope of those services, and determine the province's current capacity to provide PR services relative to need, for the province as a whole and by local health integration network (LHIN). METHODS: The Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programs in Ontario (PRO) Survey was a province-wide, descriptive, cross-sectional survey of health care facilities (hospitals, family health teams, and community health centres). It was distributed to 409 facilities to collect information on various aspects of PR services in the province. RESULTS: Between April 2013 and February 2014, 187 facilities responded to the survey (46% response rate). Most responding centres (144) did not offer PR services, and only 43 were full PR sites providing a comprehensive program. Hospital-based programs made up the majority of sites offering full PR services (67%), followed by programs based at family health teams (19%) and community health centres (14%). More than 90% of PR programs are outpatient-based. The average wait time for outpatient PR was 6.9 weeks, and 58% of programs provide services 5 days per week. More than 80% of patients attending PR complete the full program. Across all program types, the total estimated provincial capacity for PR outpatient care is 4,524 patients per year, or 0.66% to 1.78% of patients with COPD, depending on the estimated prevalence of disease. LIMITATIONS: These results are representative of 12 of the 14 LHINs in Ontario due to low response rates in facilities in 2 LHINs. CONCLUSIONS: Although some increase in capacity has occurred since a similar survey in 2005, PR resources in Ontario are insufficient to support the delivery of care to people with COPD in accordance with clinical practice guideline recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→