The role of pain in pulmonary rehabilitation: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One third of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report pain. To help inform a COPD-specific pain intervention, we explored the views of health care providers (HCPs) and individuals with COPD on pain during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: This is a qualitative study using inductive thematic analysis. Eighteen HCPs familiar with PR and 19 patients enrolled in PR participated in semi-structured interviews. Demographic data were recorded, and the patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form). RESULTS: 1) Interaction between pain and COPD: pain is a common experience in COPD, heightened by breathlessness and anxiety. 2) Pain interfering with PR: a) Communicating pain: HCPs rarely ask about pain and patients are reluctant to report it for fear of being removed from PR. b) PR is a short-term aggravator but long-term reliever: although pain limits exercise, concentration, and program adherence, PR may reduce pain by increasing muscle strength and improving coping. c) Advice and strategies for pain: some attention is given to pain management but this is often counterproductive, encouraging patients to cease exercise. 3) An intervention to manage pain: HCPs were enthusiastic about delivering a pain intervention within their knowledge and time constraints. Early group education was preferred. CONCLUSION: A pain intervention seems warranted in PR and may improve adherence and therefore clinical benefit. A pain intervention could be provided as part of PR education with HCP training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".