Peer support in COPD: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) report a desire for supportive interactions with peers. However, there is little research on the outcomes of these interactions. The purpose of this study was to identify the outcomes discussed in peer support interactions in individuals with COPD through a scoping review methodology. Methods: Literature searches from six databases produced 4,999 possible articles. Twenty-three studies, including four clinical trials, were included in the analysis. Results: The majority of the articles were written after 2006 (n=17) and included 11 qualitative, nine quantitative, and three mixed-methods studies. The published articles were broken down into two categories: those that evaluated a peer support intervention (n=11); and those that reported on informal peer support interactions (n=8). Within the quantitative articles of the peer support interventions (n=6), disease specific and overall health-related quality of life and six-minute walk distance increased pre-post intervention. In the qualitative evaluations of the peer support interventions (n=5) individuals reported gaining a way to: share experiences, build community, accept their disease, and become an advocate for COPD. The informal peer support interaction studies indicated that peers were important for creating meaningful connections and feeling understood. Conclusion: Peer support interventions with individuals living with COPD can improve traditional outcomes (e.g., quality of life) but can also help foster positive social outcomes (e.g., advocacy).Yet, there is still a lack of understanding of how peer support can be best integrated into interventions and how peer support can influence individuals' willingness to participate in their 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 | 0.023 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".