Action plans and coping strategies in elderly COPD patients influence the result of pulmonary rehabilitation: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COPD management needs a comprehensive assessment of clinical features (symptoms severity, co-morbidities) together with life-style, behavioural, socio-economic and multi-omics parameters. Among the other issues, psycho-cognitive assessment plays a critical role. Coping strategies are used to manage psychological stress.AIM: To evaluate the association between coping strategies and outcome of Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR).DESIGN: Observational study.SETTING: Inpatients comprehensive 3 weeks PR programme.POPULATION: Seventy-six patients, 70 years or older affected by COPD GOLD 3-4.METHODS: Disease-specific status was examined using the Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, Maugeri Respiratory Failure, Borg And Barthel Scales. Cognitive And Psychological Clinical Alterations/Disorders Using: Mini-Mental State Examination; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale. Quality of Life Using Activities of Daily Living; Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; 36-Item Short Form Health Survey General and Mental Health. Functional exercise capacity was measured at baseline and after PR using the Six-Minute Walking Test (6MWT). Coping strategies were measured with the Brief COPE. Internal consistency was determined examining Cronbach’s α values. Concurrent validity was determined by examining Spearman r correlations between the single-item and multi-items. Brief-COPE scores after PR between patients who had a different response to respiratory outcomes was evaluated using Student’s t and Mann-Whitney U tests.RESULTS: The change in distance (Delta6MWD) between final and baseline value in meters was positively associated with Self-distraction, Active Coping, and Planning strategies. Respiratory disease-specific health status outcomes, as well as the presence of use of long-term oxygen therapy, were not associated with coping strategies.CONCLUSIONS: Self-distraction and Planning strategies are associated to the success of rehabilitation.CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Self-distraction and Planning strategies may predict response to pulmonary rehabilitation in elderly patients affected by severe COPD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".