Patient Education Provided by Physiotherapists for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Physiotherapists have been acknowledged as playing a vital role in the care of people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and this care includes providing patient education (PE). Yet very little is known about the issues critical to providing this PE. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and map out the current knowledge about the content, processes, and overall effectiveness of the PE provided by physiotherapists for people living with COPD. Method: Using the guidelines developed by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and by Levac in 2010, key databases were searched. A total of 447 articles were identified and screened for the following inclusion criteria: adults living with COPD, published in English or French between 1995 and 2015, and describing the PE provided by physiotherapists. Fourteen studies matched these criteria. Results: In the majority of studies, both physiotherapists and nurses provided PE to patients. Common PE topics included energy conservation, exacerbations, and breathlessness. None of the studies included measures for evaluating the effectiveness of the PE. Conclusions: Even though physiotherapists routinely provide PE to people living with COPD, this PE varies substantially. The heterogeneity of the studies and lack of measures of effectiveness prevented them from providing any evidence-based recommendations for physiotherapists.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".