The Unmet Educational Needs of Patients with Interstitial Lung Disease. Setting the Stage for Tailored Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: There is no standardized education program for patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). Pulmonary rehabilitation is a resource for structured disease education that is still geared primarily toward patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this qualitative study were to identify the educational needs of patients with ILD and explore how pulmonary rehabilitation can become an appropriate setting for ILD education. METHODS: Four focus groups including 24 patients with ILD and 10 semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals with expertise in ILD and/or pulmonary rehabilitation were conducted in two academic centers (University of California San Francisco and Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal). We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis of the transcripts using an iteratively developed codebook. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The transcript analysis highlighted four major themes: patient dissatisfaction with the current educational model, lack of attention to emotional well-being, specific recommendations for educational content, and operationalizing education in the context of pulmonary rehabilitation. Seven key topics to be included an ILD-specific, pulmonary rehabilitation-based education program were identified: disease education, symptom management, clinical tests, autonomy, oxygen use, medications, and end-of-life counseling. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a better understanding of the needs of patients and healthcare providers regarding education of patients with ILD. It lays the foundation for the development of a structured education intervention that could be delivered in the context 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".