Exploring transitions in care from pulmonary rehabilitation to home for persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A descriptive qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience high health-care utilization following pulmonary rehabilitation, suggesting suboptimal transitions to home. OBJECTIVE: To understand the experiences of persons with COPD and health-care professionals regarding transitions from pulmonary rehabilitation to home, including factors impacting these transitions. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Health-care professionals working at, and persons with COPD who attended, an inpatient or outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme at one large, urban health-care centre. The centre is located in Ontario, Canada. MAIN VARIABLE STUDIED: Experiences of participants with care transitions between pulmonary rehabilitation and home. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Ten patients and eight health-care professionals participated. Four main themes were identified around the overall experiences with pulmonary rehabilitation and transitions to home: (a) pulmonary rehabilitation as a safe environment; (b) pulmonary rehabilitation as a highly structured environment; (c) contrasting perceptions of the role of pulmonary rehabilitation; and (d) dependency on pulmonary rehabilitation programmes. Persons with COPD and health-care professionals identified three key factors that influenced this transition: (a) patients' social support, (b) application of self-management strategies prior to discharge, and (c) patients' physical and mental health. CONCLUSION: Participants agreed that some patients with COPD experienced suboptimal transitions from pulmonary rehabilitation to home that were characterized by suboptimal self-management. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate interventions to improve transitions. Such interventions should include strategies to elicit long-term behaviour change to assist patients when they return into the community.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".