Using Exploratory Focus Groups to Inform the Development of a Peer-Supported Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There has been limited research on the role of peer support in self-management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) attending pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programs. This research explored patient acceptability of "peer supporters" in promoting sustained self-management practices after PR and to assess their perceived self-efficacy to manage their disease. METHODS: This qualitative study used focus groups and individual interviews to identify perspectives of peer supporters and benefits of participation in a PR program. The analysis included systematically reading and reviewing transcripts of the sessions, establishing themes, and sorting responses into thematic categories. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients with COPD (15 males) participated in either a focus group or interview. The majority of participants considered peer supporters to be good facilitators for motivating ongoing exercise after completing PR. Exercise sessions were viewed as extremely beneficial for disease management, and many were satisfied with the care they had received. Most subjects wanted to receive followup sessions with either a professional or peer after the intensive phase of PR. Overall, the concept of having a peer supporter involved in ongoing maintenance of self-management efforts after PR was generally viewed as positive. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating a peer support model into PR programs may improve better long-term health outcomes for COPD management as many participants endorsed the need for continued support after the program. It also improved our understanding of the role of "peer supports" in exercise and self-care maintenance after PR. The selection of peers and the specific model used warrants further investigation in a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.045 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".