Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and behavior about the disease process and physiotherapy management in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a group of progressive lung diseases; the most common are emphysema and chronic bronchitis. It is considered to be the major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and is considered to be one of the leading causes of deaths in India, the main reason being misconception/misinterpretation of the disease and unawareness about the risk factors which hinder early diagnosis and its treatment effectively. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude and behavior about the disease process and physiotherapy management in patients diagnosed with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 14) were conducted with seven COPD patients (diagnosed by chest physician on the basis of pulmonary function testing) in each after obtaining the written informed consent. Focus group contents were video graphed after obtaining the consent and a focus group discussion (FGD) guide comprising of 15 questions was used for the study. Transcripts were prepared from the audio/video recordings and were analyzed qualitatively by narrative analysis. RESULTS: The narration transcripted during both the sessions of FGD showed significant negligence about the disease process, its precipitating factors, preventive measures, and physiotherapy management among the patients suffering from COPD in the community. None of the patients were aware even about the term "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" and only 35.71% of patients were aware of physiotherapy management as a mean of treatment for COPD. CONCLUSIONS: The present study concludes that there is a lack of knowledge, incorrect attitudes, and flawed behavioral changes which needs to be corrected among the patients with COPD. These patients require correct, detailed, and broad-based information about their condition and availability of treatment options.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".