Effects of the “Living well with COPD” intervention in primary care: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pivotal objective of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) self-management programmes is behaviour change to avoid moderate and severe exacerbations and improve health related quality of life.In a prospectively planned, controlled study, COPD patients who participated in the "Living well with COPD" (LWWCOPD) self-management intervention were compared with usual care patients from the primary care COPD Cohort ICE COLD ERIC, who did not receive self-management intervention (NCT00706602) The primary outcome was behaviour change and disease-specific health related quality of life after 1 year. Secondary end-points included exacerbation rates. We calculated mixed linear, zero-inflated negative binomial and logistic regression models and used propensity scores to counteract confounding.467 patients, 71 from the LWWCOPD and 396 from the usual care cohort, were included. The differences between intervention and control were 0.54 (95% CI 0.13-0.94) on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire domain "mastery", 0.55 (95% CI 0.11-0.99) on "fatigue", 0.54 (0.14-0.93) on "emotional function" and 0.64 (95% CI 0.14-1.14) on "dyspnoea". The intervention considerably reduced the risk of moderate and severe exacerbations (incidence rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52).Self-management coaching in primary care improves health-related quality of life and lowers exacerbation rates and health care use.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".