Evaluation of an Enhanced Pulmonary Rehabilitation Program: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the most effective strategy to improve health outcomes in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), although it has had limited success in promoting sustained physical activity. PR with a strong focus on disease self-management may better facilitate long-term behavior change. Objectives To compare a newly developed enhanced PR (EPR) program with a traditional PR program on outcome achievement. Methods In this randomized parallel-group controlled trial, PR classes were block-randomized to EPR or traditional PR and were delivered over 16 sessions each. The EPR program incorporated new and updated “Living Well with COPD” education modules, which had a stronger focus on chronic disease self-management. Fidelity of the intervention for content and delivery was assessed. Physical activity, self-efficacy, exercise tolerance, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were collected before, after, and 6 months after PR. Healthcare visits were collected 2 years before PR and 1 year after. Mortality was recorded 1 year after PR. Results Of the 207 patients with COPD enrolled, 108 received EPR and 99 received traditional PR. Physical activity (steps) and self-efficacy improved from before to after PR in both programs, with no differences between groups. These effects were not sustained at 6 months. Exercise tolerance and HRQoL improved from before to after PR with no between-group differences and were maintained at 6 months. Visits to primary care providers and respiratory specialists decreased in the EPR program relative to the traditional PR program. EPR was delivered as intended, and there was no meaningful cross-contamination between the two programs. Conclusions Enhancing PR to have a greater emphasis on chronic disease self-management did not result in a superior improvement of physical activity and health outcomes compared with traditional PR except for reduced resource usage from primary and specialist physician visits in the EPR program.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02917915).
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".