Description of Participation in Daily and Social Activities for Individuals with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emilie Michalovicabc* , Dennis Jensenab , Ronald J. Dandurandde , Nathalie Saade, Nicole Ezeref , Gregory Moullecgh , Benjamin M. Smithefi, Jean Bourbeauef & Shane N. Sweetabc a Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; b McGill Research Centre for Physical Activity and Health, Faculty of Education, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; c Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; d CIUSSS de l’Ouest-de-l’île-de-Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; e Department of Medicine, Respiratory Division, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; f Respiratory Epidemiology and Clinical Research Unit, Research Institute McGill University, Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; g Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; h Research Center of the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé Et De Services Sociaux du Nord-de-l’Île de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; i Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USASupplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/15412555.2020.1798373.CONTACT Emilie Michalovic emilie.michalovic@mail.mcgill.ca Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, McGill University, 475 ave Pins ouest, Montreal, QC H2W 1S4, Canada.AbstractThis study described the participation in daily and social activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to participation of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Individuals, recruited from outpatient clinics, responded to a survey on their participation in, and barriers and facilitators towards, 26 daily and social activities, divided into 3 categories: (1) physical activity and movement (PAM); (2) self-care; and (3) social engagement. For each activity, chi-square analyses were used to examine participation differences by individuals’: quartiles of airflow obstruction [percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%predicted)] and breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk. Of the 200 participants (47% women; mean ± standard deviation age = 68 ± 9 years), most wanted to increase their participation in PAM activities (range 21–75%) and significant differences were found in 5/10 PAM activities for individuals’ breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk (e.g., more individuals than expected in group A (modified Medical Research Council breathlessness score <2 and 0–1 exacerbations in past 12 months) participated in regular exercise as much as they wanted (χ(9)2=20.43, Cramer’s V=.23)). Regardless of the degree of airflow obstruction or breathlessness burden and exacerbation risk, the most common barrier to participation was breathlessness (p<.001, η2p=.86) and the most common facilitator was engaging as part of their routine (p<.001, η2p=.75). Individuals with COPD want to increase their participation in daily and social activities but are limited by breathlessness. Strategies to alleviate breathlessness should be identified/prioritized and incorporated into individuals’ daily routines to meet their self-reported participation objectives in daily and social activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".