Exploring the Views of Individuals With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease on the Use of Rollators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although it has been well documented that the progressive exercise limitation associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be helped with an assistive device, such as a rollator, many individuals use it infrequently. This study seeks to explore the views of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease regarding the use of rollators. METHODS: A qualitative study design was used. Twelve individuals with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were recruited from an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program to participate in semistructured interviews. Inductive thematic analysis was applied. RESULTS: Analysis revealed 5 themes: (1) "acquiring a rollator" reflecting the process of obtaining a device either via a health care professional or self-referral; (2) "acceptance versus resistance" describing opposing views regarding rollator usage; (3) "rollator roadblocks" describing practical barriers to use; (4) "participation" reflecting how rollators can promote reintegration into society; and (5) "revising perceptions" whereby participants embodied an eventual acceptance of rollators. CONCLUSION: Rollator acquisition appeared to be a unilateral, prescriptive process. Individuals described initial resistance to use, although in the long-term, negative perceptions were outweighed by the functional and social benefits of rollator use. Encouraging users to participate in deciding whether to use a rollator and providing adequate education on its indications, benefits, barriers, and facilitators are likely to promote optimal use of a rollator.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".