Participation in physical activity and movement-related activities: Top priority for adults living with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adults living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have decreased participation in daily/social activities due in part to their burden of disease. The purpose of the study was to describe the participation levels in 26 daily/social activities among adults with COPD. Methods: Adults living with COPD (N=177; Mage=68.1, SD=8.9) responded to an online questionnaire where they reported their participation in 26 daily/social activities by selecting one of four options: (a) yes, I participate as much as I want; (b) yes, but less than I want; (c) no, but I would like to do it; and (d) no, and I don't want to do it. Percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1-sec (FEV1%pred) was used to divide the sample into four quartiles of disease severity. Results: Nearly 20% more adults in the mild group participated in activities as much as they wanted compared to the very severe group (58% vs. 38%; ?2(1)=3.45, p=0.06). Participants reported wanting to increase their participation the most in physical activity and movement-related activities. Walking up a hill was the activity that adults in the mild (69%), moderate (76%) and severe groups (71%) wanted to do more. However, 91% and 76% of adults in the very severe group wanted to participate more in regular exercise and high intensity in-home activities respectively. Conclusions: Regardless of disease severity, individuals with COPD wanted to increase their participation in physical activity and movement-related activities. Community-based physical activity programs could focus on addressing these patient-reported priorities for participation in daily/social activities.Acknowledgments: The author would like to acknowledge that this study was supported my an Investigator Initiated Grant from AstraZeneca Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".