Clinician-Led Balance Training in Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Guidelines for pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) include balance training but lack specific parameters. After a knowledge translation project at our site, clinicians modified the physiotherapy programme to facilitate the sustainability of balance training as part of PR. The purpose of this study was to explore whether the modified programme resulted in improved balance and balance confidence. A secondary aim was to provide information on the way in which balance training was operationalized as part of PR for clinicians wanting to incorporate it into an existing PR programme. Method: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, enrolled in a 4- to 6-week inpatient PR programme over a 1-year period. Balance training was provided biweekly with a staff-to-patient ratio of 2:11. Participants completed the brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (brief-BESTest) and Activities-Specific Balance Confidence (ABC) scale at the beginning and end of PR. Results: The 85 participants had a mean age of 69.5 (SD 9.0) years. After completing an average of 7.6 balance sessions (min-max 2–13), participants showed improvements in brief-BESTest (mean difference 3.2 [95% CI: 2.5, 3.9] points) and ABC (mean difference 7.8 [95% CI: 4.1, 11.5] percent). Conclusions: A staff-to-patient ratio of 2:11 and a training frequency of twice per week for 4–6 weeks improved balance. This result will inform how we incorporate balance training into existing PR programmes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".