MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623420475 · doi:10.1080/24745332.2017.1328935

Exercise prescription practices in pulmonary rehabilitation programs

2017· article· en· W2623420475 on OpenAlex
Gail Dechman, Paul Hernandez, Pat G. Camp

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Critical Care and Sleep Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health CareUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary rehabilitationMedicineAerobic exerciseMedical prescriptionPhysical therapyTest (biology)ConcordanceRehabilitationExercise prescriptionGuidelineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Current guidelines recommend using aerobic and strength exercise testing to develop patient specific exercise prescriptions for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to examine the concordance with guideline recommendations in outpatient PR programs and compare hospital-based and community-based program settings.METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of PR programs in Canada. PR programs were identified via web searches, the Canadian Lung Association database, Scott's Medical Directory and the registry of the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec. Participating programs received a link to the survey that contained 175 items, encompassing 16 domains, 3 of which focused on questions related to aerobic and strength exercise testing and training.MAIN RESULTS: One hundred twelve of 155 (83%) identified programs completed the survey; 64% were hospital-based outpatient programs. The majority of programs provided aerobic exercise prescription (76% hospital-based programs, 78% community-based programs). Most prescriptions were based on exercise testing (73% hospital-based programs, 84% community-based programs). The six minute walk test was the most commonly used test. Dyspnea and oxygen saturation were the most commonly used parameters to determine exercise intensity. More than 90% of programs reported providing strength training but less than 35% used testing to guide training intensity. There were no differences in aerobic or strength testing or training between settings. Inaccurate or incomplete information may have been submitted if consultation among program members did not occur.CONCLUSIONS: Lack of maximal testing for both aerobic and strength training suggests that current exercise prescription practices in PR programs are unlikely to yield optimal individualized exercise programs. These results suggest more effective knowledge translation is needed to improve exercise interventions in PR.RÉSUMÉCONTEXTE: Les lignes directrices actuelles recommandent d'avoir recours à des tests d'aérobie et de force musculaire à l'effort pour prescrire des exercices individualisés aux patients en réadaptation pulmonaire.OBJECTIF: Le but de cette enquête était d'examiner la concordance des programmes de réadaptation pulmonaire ambulatoires avec les recommandations des lignes directrices et de comparer les programmes en milieu hospitalier aux programmes communautaires.MÉTHODES: Nous avons réalisé un sondage en ligne auprès de programmes de réadaptation pulmonaire au Canada. Les programmes de réadaptation pulmonaire ont été recensés à l'aide de recherches sur le Web, de la base de données de l'Association pulmonaire du Canada, des Répertoires médicaux Scott's et du registre de la Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec. Les programmes participants ont reçu un lien vers un sondage comprenant 175 énoncés couvrant 16 domaines, dont trois portaient sur des questions liées aux tests d'aérobie et de force musculaire à l'effort et pendant l'entrainement.PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Cent douze des 155 programmes recensés (83%) ont répondu au sondage; 64% étaient des programmes ambulatoires en milieu hospitalier. La majorité des programmes prescrivaient des exercices d'aérobie (73% des programmes en milieu hospitalier, 84% des programmes communautaires). Le test de marche de six minutes était le test le plus souvent utilisé. La dyspnée et la saturation de l'oxygène étaient les paramètres les plus communément utilisés afin de déterminer l'intensité de l'exercice. Plus de 90% des programmes ont indiqué offrir un entrainement en musculation mais moins de 35% avaient recours à un test pour guider l'intensité de cet entrainement. Il n'y avait pas de différence entre le milieu hospitalier et le milieu communautaire en ce qui concerne les tests ou les exercices d'aérobie ou de musculation. Il est possible que de l'information inexacte ou incomplète ait été soumise si les membres du programme n'ont pas consultés.CONCLUSION: L'absence de test maximal tant pour l'entrainement aérobique que pour l'entrainement musculaire suggère que les pratiques actuelles en matière de prescription d'exercice sont peu susceptibles de donner lieu à des programmes individualisés optimaux. Ces résultats suggèrent qu'un transfert des connaissances plus efficace est nécessaire pour améliorer les interventions ayant recours à l'exercice en réadaptation pulmonaire.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.491
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.314 · 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