Oxygen administration practices during exercise training in Ontario pulmonary rehabilitation programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Individuals with moderate to severe lung disease may exhibit exertional hypoxemia that can limit exercise capacity. Oxygen may allow training at higher exercise intensities and durations, however, clinical practice guidelines for oxygen administration during exercise training in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) are lacking.OBJECTIVE: To explore and describe clinical practices of oxygen administration in PR and facilitators and barriers to oxygen administration.METHODS: A 51-item web-based survey of health care professionals working in Ontario PR programs was conducted. PR programs were identified through an Ontario Lung Association database.MAIN RESULTS: Responses from 44/81 (54%) identified PR sites were obtained and a total of 56 eligible respondents from these sites initiated the survey resulting in 46 completed surveys and 10 partially completed surveys. Seventy-one percent of respondents reported oxygen administration protocols. Common practice was to maintain oxygen saturation above a specified level with exercise, which was managed by either administering oxygen or by stopping exercise. A prevalent perceived facilitator was knowledge regarding the benefits of oxygen during exercise, however half of the respondents reported they would not titrate oxygen in order to increase exercise training intensity or endurance capacity. The most common perceived barrier was oxygen administration outside professional scope of practice.CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in oxygen administration practices exist in Ontario PR programs in regard to availability of oxygen protocols, professional training, authority to administer oxygen and methods for managing hypoxemia during exercise. The development of clinical guidelines around oxygen administration is warranted to facilitate exercise training and optimize functional outcomes during PR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".