Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Education in Pulmonary Rehabilitation. An Official American Thoracic Society/Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand/Canadian Thoracic Society/British Thoracic Society Workshop Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the 2013 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement on pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), education to promote effective self-management is a cornerstone of this intervention. Despite education's stature within PR, there is currently limited evidence supporting its overall efficacy, and minimal evidence guiding its optimal design and delivery. This workshop was convened to focus on the current state of education in PR for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, who are the most common people referred to PR. The workshop explored the learning needs and limitations of patients participating in PR, promising design features (from work done outside of PR) that may inform our approach to education, and professional development of PR healthcare educators. Areas identified as needing development include: 1) outcome assessment for the educational component; 2) screening patients for conditions that will impede the learning process (anxiety, depression, cognitive deficits and health literacy issues); 3) tailoring content and optimizing delivery of the educational component; and 4) training PR professionals in their roles as educators. By necessity, the workshop conclusions are painted in broad strokes. However, with ongoing interest in improving quality through individualized patient assessment, educational design innovations, and scientific scrutiny comparable to that given to exercise training, the educational component of PR may achieve effective self-management, leading to successful behavior change and enhancement in health.
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 | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".