Effect of care protocol on the knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Care protocol for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is considered as a strategy for promoting their knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes. Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of care protocol on knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes of patients with COPD through the following: A. Assessment of knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). B. Developing and implementing care protocol for patients with COPD. C. Evaluating the effect of care protocol on knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes of patients with COPD. Methods : Study design: A quasi-experimental design was utilized to conduct this study. Setting: The study was conducted at chest department and outpatient clinic at Ain Shams University Hospitals. Subjects: A purposive sample of 50 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was included in the study. Data collection tools: (1) Patients’ assessment sheet. (2) Patients’ observational checklists. (3) Clinical outcomes assessment sheet. Results : There were statistically significant differences between mean scores of the pre and post test regarding patients’ knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes except for respiratory muscle training. Conclusions : Application of care protocol for patients with COPD has positive effect on improving knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes regarding dyspnea, fatigue, sleep quality, mood. Recommendations: Applying care protocol for all patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the chest units and up-dating its content periodically in order to improve knowledge, practice and clinical outcomes for those patients.
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 | 0.024 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".