Action plans in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a qualitative study—‘I do what I can do’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, incurable fibrotic lung disease in which patients and caregivers report a high symptom burden. Symptoms are often poorly managed and patients and caregivers struggle to alleviate their distress in the absence of self-management support. AIM: To explore perceptions of symptoms, symptom management strategies and self-efficacy for patients with IPF and caregivers who received self-management education and action plans created and provided in a Multidisciplinary Collaborative Interstitial Lung Disease (MDC-ILD) Clinic. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted with participants recruited from the MDC-ILD Clinic. Participants received an early integrated palliative approach; most attended ILD pulmonary rehabilitation and some received home care support. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Patient participants completed Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) for symptom assessment and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Self-Efficacy Scale to assess self-management efficacy. RESULTS: Thirteen patients and eight self-declared caregiver participants were interviewed. IPF severity ranged from mild to advanced disease. Participants integrated and personalised self-management strategies. They were intentional and confident, focused on living well and engaged in anticipatory planning. Twelve participants completed the MYMOP. Five reported dyspnoea. Four reported fatigue as an additional or only symptom. One reported cough. Five declared no dyspnoea, cough or fatigue. Participants reported 80% self-efficacy in symptom management. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to symptom self-management and education was beneficial to patients with IPF and caregiver participants. Participants personalised the strategies, focusing on living, and planned both in the moment and for the future. They were confident and expressed dignity and meaning in their lives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".