Quality indicators for pulmonary rehabilitation programs in Canada: A Canadian Thoracic Society expert working group report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) varies widely across Canada. There is a need for evidence-based quality indicators (QI) that can be used to identify variations in the quality of PR with the aim of improving health outcomes.OBJECTIVES: To use an evidence-based, systematic process to develop QI that addresses the process, structure and outcomes of PR.METHODS: The development process was based on the modified RAND Appropriateness Method that included a systematic review of the literature to identify candidate QI and refinement of these QI by a Working Group before they were sent to a Delphi panel. Panel members rated the importance, scientific soundness, reliability, and feasibility of each candidate using an electronic survey. The results of the survey were distributed to panelists who deliberated by teleconference prior their re-rating the candidate QI.RESULTS: The literature review identified 5490 titles and abstracts. A total of 1653 articles were retained after initial screening. After full text screening, 190 articles remained and were used to generate 90 candidate QI. The Delphi panel identified 56 QI: 19 structural, 29 process, 8 outcome. The Working Group distilled these to a shorter list of 14 core QI that defined the minimal requirements for PR.CONCLUSIONS: This process resulted in a comprehensive set of 56 QI and a shorter list of 14 core QI that can be used for evaluation and feedback to improve PR and patient outcomes. Future research to determine standards for the QI will support the development and assessment of strategies to improve 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 | 0.061 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".