P23 Re-development of a pulmonary rehabilitation education programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Patient education is considered integral to a comprehensive pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programme. Historically, there has been limited evidence on which to guide optimal design and delivery. Following the ATS/TSANZ/CTS/BTS Workshop (The American Thoracic Society (ATS) Workshop on Education in Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)) in 2016, we recognised a need to update our current PR education programme. Aim To re-develop and optimise delivery of the educational component of PR with a view toward enhancing the effectiveness of this component. Methods We used the ATS/TSANZ/CTS/BTS Workshop Report: COPD Education in Pulmonary Rehabilitation1 to structure our education re-development alongside Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching and Assessing2. We created objectives based on learner needs and formulated a delivery strategy (consisting of content and method; figure 1). Results 12 PR education sessions have been re-developed and are currently being implemented. Delivery has been cascaded using the following method, once each session has been finalised by the lead author of that session: Observation of the new session Practice delivery of the new session Checked for fidelity to session plan Staff received additional group training in facilitating groups due to the more interactive nature of the new sessions. Conclusions It is feasible to use the ATS/TSANZ/CTS Workshop Report to structure a PR education re-development. The final elements of the re-development process are to gain patient and staff feedback on the new sessions, to complete programme content and delivery. Following on from this we intend to evaluate the new programme of education. References Blackstock FC, Lareau SC, Nici L, ZuWallack R, Bourbeau J, Buckley M, Durning S, Effing TW, Egbert E, Goldstein R, Kelly W, Lee A, Meek PM, Schuwirth L, Singh S. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease education in pulmonary rehabilitation an official american thoracic society/thoracic society of australia and new zealand/canadian thoracic society/british thoracic society workshop report. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2018;15(7):769–784. Anderson L, Krathwohl DR, Bloom BS. ( 2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
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 | 0.028 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.009 |
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".