Improving acceptance and uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of COPD: Acceptability, feasibility, and safety of a PR “taster” session delivered before hospital discharge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and safety of delivering a pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) "taster" session to patients hospitalized with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; (2) evaluate the changes in patient knowledge and readiness to commence PR; and (3) make recommendations for future intervention iterations. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of patients that accepted to participate. Feasibility was measured by the proportion of eligible participants. Knowledge was evaluated using the modified versions of the Understanding COPD (UCOPD) and Bristol COPD Knowledge (BCKQ) questionnaires. Readiness to commence PR was measured by a modified version of the Readiness to Change Exercise Questionnaire. All measures were delivered pre- and post-intervention. Thirty-one of 34 eligible individuals were able to be approached. Prospective acceptability was low, with 24 individuals declining the intervention, 1 being discharged without making a decision, and only 6 participating. Positive median change was recorded in the modified UCOPD questionnaire (+8), but not the BCKQ (0). Three of the patients were already in the action phase pre-intervention, with all but one in that phase post-intervention. The delivery of a PR "taster" session was not prospectively acceptable to a large portion of patients and only feasible with modifications to the original protocol.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".