Assessing the Perceptions of Inspiratory Muscle Training in Children With Cystic Fibrosis and Their Multidisciplinary Team: Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the opinions or perceived benefits of an inspiratory muscle training intervention in patients with cystic fibrosis and their multidisciplinary team. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to examine patients' and multidisciplinary teams' views on inspiratory muscle training to inform and tailor future interventions. METHODS: Individual, semistructured interviews were conducted to evaluate participants' perspectives of a 4-week inspiratory muscle training intervention. In this study, 8 of 13 individuals involved in the inspiratory muscle training program (5 children aged 11-14 years; 2 physiotherapists; and 1 respiratory physician) participated. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, analyzed using thematic analyses, and then coded into relevant themes. RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: acceptability, facilitators, barriers, and recommendations. While fun, enjoyment, and improved perceived physical ability were reported by children and their multidisciplinary team following the inspiratory muscle training program, the multidisciplinary team identified factors such as time and cost as key barriers. CONCLUSIONS: A short inspiratory muscle training program was perceived to have positive effects on the physical ability and psychosocial health of children with cystic fibrosis. These findings highlight the importance of obtaining participants' and multidisciplinary teams' perceptions and recommendations to ensure the efficacy and optimal design of future inspiratory muscle training protocols.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".